\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Karla Brintley v. Belle River Community Credit Union\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-08-27\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: Yes\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0215p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n KARLA BRINTLEY, ┐\\n Plaintiff-Appellee, │\\n │\\n > Nos. 18-2326/2328\\n v. │\\n │\\n │\\n AEROQUIP CREDIT UNION (18-2326); BELLE RIVER │\\n COMMUNITY CREDIT UNION (18-2328), │\\n Defendants-Appellants. │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.\\n Nos. 2:17-cv-13912; 2:17-cv-13915—Arthur J Tarnow, District Judge.\\n\\n Argued: August 8, 2019\\n\\n Decided and Filed: August 27, 2019\\n\\n Before: GILMAN, SUTTON, and WHITE, Circuit Judges.\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nARGUED: Joseph A. Starr, STARR, BUTLER, ALEXOPOULOS & STONER, PLLC,\\nSouthfield, Michigan, for Appellants. Richard H. Hikida, PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS,\\nP.C., Newport Beach, California, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Joseph A. Starr, William R.\\nThomas, STARR, BUTLER, ALEXOPOULOS & STONER, PLLC, Southfield, Michigan, for\\nAppellants. Scott J. Ferrell, David W. Reid, PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS, P.C., Newport\\nBeach, California, Jennifer B. Salvatore, SALVATORE PRESCOTT & PORTER, Northville,\\nMichigan, for Appellee. Patricia Corkery, MICHIGAN CREDIT UNION LEAGUE, Lansing,\\nMichigan, Christine A. Samsel, BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP, Denver,\\nColorado, for Amici Curiae.\\n\\n SUTTON, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which GILMAN and WHITE, JJ.,\\njoined. WHITE, J. (pg. 8), delivered a separate concurring opinion.\\n\\n Nos. 18-2326/2328 Brintley v. Aeroquip Credit Union et al. Page 2\\n\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n SUTTON, Circuit Judge. Karla Brintley sued two credit unions under the Americans\\nwith Disabilities Act, claiming that they failed to make their websites accessible to blind\\nindividuals. But Brintley never suffered an Article III injury from the alleged ADA violations.\\nWhy? She lacks eligibility under state law to join either credit union and her complaint does not\\nconvey any interest in becoming eligible to do so. We therefore reverse the district court’s\\ncontrary decision.\\n\\n I.\\n\\n Karla Brintley lives in Michigan and is blind. To navigate the internet, she uses a screen\\nreader. The software works like it sounds: It scans webpages and narrates their contents. The\\ntechnology remains in its infancy. It struggles with some material, especially pictures and video\\nunaccompanied by alternative text. With some effort, companies can make their websites fully\\nscreen-reader compatible. But not all companies have taken that step.\\n\\n Enter Aeroquip Credit Union and Belle River Community Credit Union. Established\\nunder Michigan law, these domestic credit unions provide a range of financial services to their\\nmembers, including checking and savings accounts, loans, credit cards, and mortgages. Both\\ncredit unions maintain a limited brick-and-mortar presence. And both of them operate websites\\ncontaining information about their membership eligibility and services. Brintley tried to browse\\nthese websites a few times but found her screen reader unable to process some of their content.\\n\\n An acknowledged “tester” of website compliance with the Americans with Disabilities\\nAct, Brintley sued the credit unions in federal court under the Act and its Michigan state-law\\ncounterpart. She sought compensatory and injunctive relief on the theory that the websites were\\na “service” offered through a “place of public accommodation,” entitling her to the “full and\\nequal enjoyment” of the websites. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a). The credit unions moved to dismiss\\nthe claims, arguing that Brintley failed to satisfy Article III standing. The district court rejected\\neach motion.\\n\\n Nos. 18-2326/2328 Brintley v. Aeroquip Credit Union et al. Page 3\\n\\n\\n II.\\n\\n The United States Constitution empowers federal courts to decide “Cases” or\\n“Controversies.” U.S. Const. art. III, § 2. Embedded in this limitation is the imperative that\\nclaimants establish Article III standing to bring a claim. To meet this “irreducible constitutional\\nminimum,” Brintley must show three things: that she sustained an injury in fact, that she can\\ntrace the injury to the credit unions’ conduct, and that a decision in her favor would redress the\\ninjury. Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992).\\n\\n Today’s case turns on the first of these criteria, injury in fact. As to that, Brintley must\\nshow an invasion of a “legally protected interest” that is both “concrete and particularized” and\\n“actual or imminent.” Id. at 560. Not only must her injury be “real,” but it also must affect her\\nin some “personal and individual way.” Id. at 560 n.1.\\n\\n The credit unions did not injure Brintley. The key problem is that state law barred her\\nfrom receiving any of the credit unions’ financial services. Under Michigan law, domestic credit\\nunions may assist only those falling within a narrow “field of membership” based on one or more\\n“common bonds.” Mich. Comp. Laws § 490.352. What are common bonds? Think shared\\ncommunity interests like a common occupation, a common religious identity, or a common place\\nof residence. Id. Brintley isn’t within any of these fields of membership, and her complaint\\nnever says that she plans to change that reality any time soon.\\n\\n Two of our sister circuits recently considered nearly identical cases, and each one\\ndismissed the claims for this precise reason. The Fourth Circuit resolved the issue in this way:\\n“[W]e address only whether this plaintiff who is barred by law from making use of defendant’s\\nservices may sue under the ADA for an allegedly deficient website. The answer to this narrow\\nquestion here is no.” Griffin v. Dep’t of Labor Fed. Credit Union, 912 F.3d 649, 653 (4th Cir.\\n2019); see also Carroll v. Nw. Fed. Credit Union, 770 F. App’x 102, 104 (4th Cir. 2019). The\\nSeventh Circuit did likewise: “[A] plaintiff who is legally barred from using a credit union’s\\nservices cannot demonstrate an injury that is either concrete or particularized.” Carello v.\\nAurora Policemen Credit Union, No. 18-2887, 2019 WL 3072152, at *2 (7th Cir. July 15, 2019).\\nNothing about Brintley’s case counsels a different outcome.\\n\\n Nos. 18-2326/2328 Brintley v. Aeroquip Credit Union et al. Page 4\\n\\n\\n By way of response, Brintley offers several possible ways to satisfy the injury-in-fact\\nrequirement. None does the trick.\\n\\n Despite the barrier imposed by Michigan law, Brintley says in her amended complaint\\nthat she “wants to avail herself of [the credit unions’] banking services.” R. 35 at 5–6. But she\\nnever says that she has made any efforts to become eligible. What the Court said in Lujan\\napplies here: “[T]he affiants’ profession of an ‘inten[t]’ . . . without any description of concrete\\nplans, or indeed even any specification of when that someday will be—do not support a finding\\nof the ‘actual or imminent’ injury that our cases require.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 564. Brintley’s\\namended complaint does not contain the sorts of “concrete plans” that could elevate her intent\\ninto an injury a federal court could hear. There is no indication, for instance, that she has any\\nplan to move to St. Clair County (to become eligible for Belle River Community Credit Union)\\nor to apply for a job at Aeroquip Corporation (to become eligible for Aeroquip Credit Union).\\nWe have no authority to imagine the dots that she might one day connect to create an injury in\\nfact. What matters now is that she has no plans to become a member of either credit union or\\notherwise obtain the status that would allow her to do so.\\n\\n Brintley worries that this approach makes too much of the constraints imposed by\\nMichigan law. After all, she says, the Americans with Disabilities Act doesn’t impose a “client,”\\n“customer,” or “patron” requirement. Appellee’s Br. 14–15. That is not quite true. The truth is\\nthat the Supreme Court has reserved judgment on the point. See PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin,\\n532 U.S. 661, 679 (2001). But even if Brintley turns out to be right on this score, this conclusion\\nwould bear only on her statutory standing to seek relief, not her Article III standing. See\\nRoberts v. Hamer, 655 F.3d 578, 580 (6th Cir. 2011). Consistent with this distinction, other\\ncourts have permitted non-client parties to bring claims only when they independently\\nestablished injury in fact. See, e.g., Menkowitz v. Pottstown Mem’l Med. Ctr., 154 F.3d 113, 122\\n(3d Cir. 1998) (holding that a non-employee doctor with staff privileges at a hospital had\\nstanding to sue the hospital under the Act). There’s no reason to ignore that requirement today.\\n\\n What of the possibility that she wants to access the websites in full to determine whether\\nto become a member of either credit union? Just as sighted individuals who are not members\\nmay wish to check out the websites to determine whether to become members, Brintley claims\\n\\n Nos. 18-2326/2328 Brintley v. Aeroquip Credit Union et al. Page 5\\n\\n\\nshe should have the same right. Yes and no. Yes, if she claimed an interest in joining one of the\\ncredit unions, she would be on the same footing as a sighted individual engaged in the same\\ninquiry. But no, that is not her position. She has not conveyed any intent to join either credit\\nunion. And just as a sighted individual with no inclination to join a union could not raise, say, an\\nAge Discrimination in Employment Act claim about a credit union’s hypothetical age-based\\nmembership policies, so she cannot bring an ADA claim. See Griffin, 912 F.3d at 655 (holding\\nthat a plaintiff’s injuries can’t be particularized without a “connection between the plaintiff and\\nthe defendant” not common to the general public).\\n\\n Brintley separately urges us to hold that the websites’ inaccessibility causes a\\nfreestanding informational harm. Set aside the fact that this argument was not raised before the\\ndistrict court. See In re Morris, 260 F.3d 654, 663 (6th Cir. 2001). And set aside our prior\\nskepticism about this argument’s premises. See Parker v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 121 F.3d 1006,\\n1010 (6th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (holding that “places of public accommodation” must be\\n“physical”). No matter, the argument does not work on its own terms.\\n\\n A procedural violation of an informational entitlement does not by itself suffice to keep a\\nclaim in federal court. See, e.g., Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1549 (2016). To\\nprevail, Brintley would need to allege at least that the information had “some relevance” to her.\\nGriffin, 912 F.3d at 654; see Carello, 2019 WL 3072152, at *3–4; see also Beaudry v. TeleCheck\\nServs., Inc., 579 F.3d 702, 707 (6th Cir. 2009). But nothing in the amended complaint supports\\nthat conclusion.\\n\\n Brintley persists that the websites offer an “array of services,” such as facility locators\\nand financial calculators. Appellee’s Br. 25. How, she asks, could such information “not be\\nuseful” to a non-member? Id. We can think of a few answers. Perhaps she had no desire to use\\nthese tools anyway. Perhaps she had no reason to care about their results. Perhaps they\\nduplicate information elsewhere online. More to the point, Brintley’s question isn’t for us to\\nanswer. She had the burden to allege some real interest in the information. Failing to do so\\ndeprives us of power over the matter.\\n\\n Nos. 18-2326/2328 Brintley v. Aeroquip Credit Union et al. Page 6\\n\\n\\n She argues alternatively that, even if the websites’ information would not have provided\\nany help to her, it still might have been “useful to share with her friends or family.” Id. at 26.\\nThis argument adds nothing to her last. What information? What friends and family members?\\nDoes she know anyone for whom the websites’ information might have special relevance? We\\ndon’t know. This position merely adds more speculation to the mix.\\n\\n Brintley adds that the websites’ inaccessibility qualifies as a concrete (if intangible)\\ndignitary injury under Article III. It’s true that “dignitary harm” and “stigmatic injury” might\\ngive rise to standing in some settings. See Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 755 (1984). But to\\nqualify, a plaintiff can’t simply suffer an “abstract” slight; she must be “personally subject to the\\nchallenged discrimination.” Id. at 755–56. That’s why a “black person in Hawaii” lacks\\nstanding to challenge a “racially discriminatory school in Maine.” Id. at 756. To hold otherwise\\nwould “risk exceeding the judiciary’s limited constitutional mandate” and “interfering with\\npowers committed to other branches of government.” Am. Legion v. Am. Humanist Ass’n, 139 S.\\nCt. 2067, 2099 (2019) (Gorsuch, J., concurring). Mere indignation and mere affront are not\\nsufficiently particularized injuries under Article III, whether the claimant purports to be a\\n“tester” or not. See Griffin, 912 F.3d at 653–54; Carello, 2019 WL 3072152, at *2. Otherwise,\\nany citizen would have had standing to challenge the lawfulness of the bombing of Cambodia in\\n1973. Cf. Schlesinger v. Holtzman, 414 U.S. 1321, 1321 (1973); see also Holtzman v.\\nSchlesinger, 484 F.2d 1307, 1315 (2d Cir. 1973). Or: “anyone who goes to see Asian elephants\\nin the Bronx zoo” would have standing to sue about a government-funded “project in Sri Lanka.”\\nLujan, 504 U.S. at 566. This would reduce standing to an “ingenious academic exercise in the\\nconceivable.” United States v. SCRAP, 412 U.S. 669, 688 (1973).\\n\\n Brintley’s injury is simply too attenuated to support standing. The internet is a vast and\\noften unpleasant place. It contains plenty that may offend, and those who set out looking for\\ndignitary slights won’t be disappointed. But merely browsing the web, without more, isn’t\\nenough to satisfy Article III. And whatever that “more” may entail, Brintley doesn’t have it.\\nMichigan law prevents Brintley from acquiring services from these credit unions, a legal\\nboundary that makes it “impossible” for her to be “personally subject” to dignitary injury. See\\nGriffin, 912 F.3d at 654; see also Carello, 2019 WL 30752152, at *2–3.\\n\\n Nos. 18-2326/2328 Brintley v. Aeroquip Credit Union et al. Page 7\\n\\n\\n Hold up, Brintley says. Unlike the hypothetical in Allen, she actually visited the websites\\nat issue and “personal[ly] encounter[ed]” discrimination. Appellee’s Br. 37 & n.20. True\\nenough. But not all “encounters” are of a kind. If we adopted Brintley’s theory of encounter\\nstanding, we’d deputize her to sue not just these credit unions but many of the some 5,600 others\\nin the United States as well. See Credit Union Nat’l Ass’n & Mich. Credit Union League\\nAmicus Br. 1. Never mind how geographically remote. Never mind how attenuated their\\nrelationship. And if we credit Brintley’s statistics on visual impairment, we’d permit eight\\nmillion other Americans to do the same. That’s not the law. Standing aims to prevent the\\nfederal judiciary from becoming a “vehicle for the vindication of the value interests of concerned\\nbystanders.” SCRAP, 412 U.S. at 687. Those who merely peruse websites that they can’t benefit\\nfrom have less in common with bystanders than they do with passersby.\\n\\n Brintley adds that the Supreme Court has adopted a uniquely “broad view” of standing in\\ncivil rights actions such as this one. Appellee’s Br. 6. Accordingly, she suggests that testers like\\nher, acting as “private attorneys general,” are entitled to special solicitude in an Article III\\nstanding analysis. Id. at 7. True, courts generally read civil rights statutes to extend statutory\\nstanding to a wide range of parties. See Trafficante v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 409 U.S. 205, 208\\n(1972). True also, tester status doesn’t have a “negative effect” on a plaintiff’s ability to sue.\\nSee Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363, 373 (1982). But neither observation gives\\nBrintley a pass to skip the ordinary constitutional requirements to suing in federal court. See\\nHavens, 455 U.S. at 374–75; Trafficante, 409 U.S. at 209; see also Mason v. Adams Cty.\\nRecorder, 901 F.3d 753, 756 (6th Cir. 2018). And if anything, the Supreme Court’s recent\\nstanding jurisprudence has only further “tightened the hatches” on what qualifies as injury in\\nfact. Vonderhaar v. Village of Evendale, 906 F.3d 397, 401 (6th Cir. 2018); see generally\\nSpokeo, 136 S. Ct. 1540.\\n\\n We reverse.\\n\\n Nos. 18-2326/2328 Brintley v. Aeroquip Credit Union et al. Page 8\\n\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n CONCURRENCE\\n _________________\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3759,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4656894,"string":"4,656,894"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Gerald Sensabaugh v. Kimber Halliburton"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-08-27"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-6329"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before: ROGERS, BUSH, and LARSEN, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"LARSEN, Circuit Judge\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0216p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n GERALD SENSABAUGH, ┐\\n Plaintiff-Appellant, │\\n │\\n > No. 18-6329\\n v. │\\n │\\n │\\n KIMBER HALLIBURTON, Individually and in her official │\\n capacity as Director of Schools; WASHINGTON │\\n COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, │\\n Defendants-Appellees. │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Eastern District of Tennessee at Greeneville.\\n No. 2:18-cv-00011—Pamela Lynn Reeves, Chief District Judge.\\n\\n Decided and Filed: August 27, 2019\\n\\n Before: ROGERS, BUSH, and LARSEN, Circuit Judges.\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nON BRIEF: M.E. Buck Dougherty, DUNCAN, HATCHER, HOLLAND & FLEENOR, P.C.,\\nChattanooga, Tennessee, for Appellant. Jeffrey M. Ward, MILLIGAN & COLEMAN PLLP,\\nGreeneville, Tennessee, for Kimber Halliburton in her individual capacity. Samuel K. McPeak,\\nHERRIN, MCPEAK & ASSOCIATES, Johnson City, Tennessee, for Appellees Washington\\nCounty Board of Education and Kimber Halliburton in her official capacity.\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n LARSEN, Circuit Judge. Gerald Sensabaugh, the former head football coach at David\\nCrockett High School in Washington County, Tennessee, made two Facebook posts expressing\\nhis concerns about the conditions and practices of schools within the Washington County School\\n\\f No. 18-6329 Sensabaugh v. Halliburton, et al. Page 2\\n\\n\\nDistrict. He claims that he was fired as a result. He sued School Director Kimber Halliburton,\\nraising a First Amendment retaliation claim, and the Washington County Board of Education\\n(the Board), raising a municipal liability claim. The district court granted summary judgment to\\nHalliburton because Sensabaugh had failed to show that Halliburton had violated his\\nconstitutional rights. And because Sensabaugh had failed to establish an underlying\\nconstitutional violation, his municipal liability claim against the Board also failed. For the\\nreasons stated, we AFFIRM.\\n\\n I.\\n\\n Sensabaugh became head football coach at David Crockett High School in 2017. The\\nschool is within the Washington County School District and is overseen by the Board.\\nHalliburton is the Director of Schools for the Washington County School District. Sensabaugh’s\\nimmediate supervisor was Athletic Director Josh Kite, and his ultimate supervisor was Principal\\nPeggy Wright.\\n\\n On September 22, 2017, Sensabaugh visited an elementary school within the district.\\nThe visit was unrelated to his job. After the visit, Sensabaugh posted on Facebook, decrying the\\nconditions of the elementary school. His post included photos of the classroom, and one photo\\nshowed the faces of several students. Upon seeing the post, the elementary school principal\\ncontacted the district’s Director of Human Resources, Susan Kiernan; the principal relayed his\\nconcern that the posts might violate the law or school policy because the school might not have\\nobtained parental consent to show the students’ faces. Kiernan relayed these concerns to Wright\\nand Halliburton.\\n\\n Halliburton, believing “that the public posting of a photo showing a child’s face could be\\nviolative of both the [Board’s] policy and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act,”\\ncontacted the Board’s attorney, Thomas Seeley. Wright and Halliburton tried to call Sensabaugh\\nto “instruct him to immediately remove any photo showing a child’s face—but not any posts or\\nother content.” But Sensabaugh did not answer the calls. Halliburton did briefly communicate\\nwith Sensabaugh by text message that evening. So did Wright, whose text told Sensabaugh to\\nremove the photos from Facebook. Sensabaugh did not comply.\\n\\f No. 18-6329 Sensabaugh v. Halliburton, et al. Page 3\\n\\n\\n Two days later, Sensabaugh again posted on Facebook; this post discussed his concerns\\nwith prisoners working at the high school. Halliburton texted Sensabaugh after reading the post,\\ntelling him: “I see you’ve posted something else before knowing all the facts. Uncertain why\\nyou are not taking my calls. I really would like to speak to you.” Later that day, Wright and\\nHalliburton spoke with Sensabaugh on the phone. According to Halliburton:\\n\\n Wright and I spoke to Sensabaugh by phone, and attempted to address the safety\\n concerns that Sensabaugh raised and again requested that he remove any photo(s)\\n of the Jonesborough Elementary School children from Facebook; we advised\\n Sensabaugh that he did not need to take down the post, just the photo(s) of the\\n students . . . . During this phone conversation, Sensabaugh yelled at us and told\\n us that he was not taking the photo down. Then, he hung up on us.\\n\\nWright recounted the telephone call similarly, noting that Sensabaugh “repeatedly interrupted us\\nand he yelled at us” and that “Halliburton and I could not believe that Sensabaugh would speak\\nto his supervisors in this manner.” Halliburton also explained, “During my more than fifteen\\nyears as a supervisor[] in the education field, I have never had an employee speak to me the way\\nthat Sensabaugh spoke to Wright and me in that September 24, 2017 phone call.” Sensabaugh\\nexplained the conversation as follows:\\n\\n It was a very heated phone conversation and Director Halliburton and Principal\\n Wright threatened me with my job as head football coach. Director Halliburton\\n and Principal Wright both told me that they “could make it where I would never\\n coach football again anywhere.”\\n\\nAfter the conversation, Sensabaugh sent a text message to Halliburton that read: “Just let me\\nknow the next step. Fire me or deal with it.”\\n\\n Based on Sensabaugh’s conduct during the phone call, Halliburton consulted attorney\\nSeeley on how to proceed with “some level of corrective action.” Although Halliburton wanted\\nto fire Sensabaugh, Seeley recommended “a letter to address the issues with him and give him a\\nchance to correct his behavior.” Wright and Halliburton drafted a Letter of Guidance, which\\naddressed not only Sensabaugh’s failure to remove the photos from Facebook and his conduct\\nduring the phone call, but other alleged misconduct, including his use of profane language with\\nstudents and his requiring a student to practice while injured. The letter again directed\\nSensabaugh to remove the photos from Facebook but stated, “At no time did we ask you to\\n\\f No. 18-6329 Sensabaugh v. Halliburton, et al. Page 4\\n\\n\\ndelete any of your comments or opinions on social media. You have the right to comment on\\nmatters of public interest on social media.” The letter concluded, “Failure to follow my\\ndirectives may lead to discipline up to and including termination as our football coach.” After\\nreceiving the letter, Sensabaugh removed the photos from Facebook.\\n\\n Wright gave Sensabaugh the Letter of Guidance at a meeting on October 6, 2017, during\\nwhich Wright claims that Sensabaugh “became agitated and began pacing back and forth. As the\\nmeeting progressed, he became belligerent and confrontational.” According to Wright,\\n“Sensabaugh interrupted my attempt to read him the letter, but ultimately let me finish reading\\nit.” “At the meeting, Sensabaugh “accused his immediate supervisor, [Athletic Director] Kite, of\\ncoming to work ‘high’ on the prescription medication, Oxycodone.” Wright stated, “Sensabaugh\\nthreatened to expose Kite to the media if we took any further action related to Sensabaugh’s\\nconduct.” At this same meeting, Sensabaugh also claimed knowledge of a student’s having\\nbrought a gun to school. In a subsequent interview, Sensabaugh stated that the claim was\\nhypothetical and meant to illustrate that allegations of wrongdoing are easy to make but difficult\\nto prove. However, Sensabaugh acknowledged having heard an unsubstantiated rumor that a\\nstudent brought either a shotgun or BB gun to school. Wright later explained: “I was very\\nconcerned that Sensabaugh waited until his own conduct was being addressed to bring up\\nsomething that should have been reported immediately.”\\n\\n After the Letter of Guidance meeting, Sensabaugh went straight to the cafeteria where he\\nconfronted an athletic trainer and the injured student whom Sensabaugh had allegedly forced to\\npractice. Later that night, Sensabaugh allegedly directed profanity toward his football players\\nduring a game, in direct violation of the Letter of Guidance. And Sensabaugh allegedly went\\naround proclaiming “loudly so that everyone around, including students, could hear: ‘Josh Kite\\nhas a drug problem and has offered me Oxycodone. He carries it around the school and I don’t\\ncare who hears me.’” During a later independent investigation, Sensabaugh denied having\\ndirected profanity at the students that night and making such statements about Kite.\\n\\n Sensabaugh’s conduct following the Letter of Guidance meeting prompted Wright to\\ncontact attorney Seeley to report her concern “that Sensabaugh posed a threat to the safety of the\\nstudents and staff.” Although Wright initially wished to fire Sensabaugh, she and Halliburton\\n\\f No. 18-6329 Sensabaugh v. Halliburton, et al. Page 5\\n\\n\\nultimately agreed with Seeley’s recommendation to instead issue a Letter of Reprimand. The\\nLetter of Reprimand recounted the incidents leading up to its issuance, placed Sensabaugh on\\nadministrative leave pending a full investigation by an independent law firm, and warned\\nSensabaugh that termination of his employment was possible. Wright testified that “Sensabaugh\\nwas extremely rude and insubordinate” when she read him the Letter of Reprimand and\\nexplained that “[i]f Sensabaugh w[ere] not already being suspended and investigated, [she]\\nwould have immediately recommended his termination based upon his conduct.”\\n\\n An independent law firm painstakingly investigated the alleged misconduct, interviewing\\n“seventeen different witnesses who were identified as potentially having relevant knowledge or\\ninformation” and reviewing scores of documents and text messages. This included a lengthy\\ninterview with Sensabaugh. The investigators concluded that Sensabaugh had used profanity\\nand had failed to follow instructions to remove the photos from Facebook until after the Letter of\\nGuidance meeting. They determined that Sensabaugh had been unprofessional and insubordinate\\nduring the Letter of Guidance and Letter of Reprimand meetings as well as, afterward, in his\\nretaliation against the athletic trainer and student-athlete in the cafeteria. And they found the\\nallegations of Sensabaugh’s failure to report safety concerns and to follow orders regarding\\npracticing injured players partially substantiated. The investigators’ report concluded:\\n\\n [W]e find that Sensabaugh engaged in unprofessional, insubordinate, threatening\\n and retaliatory behavior towards supervisors, staff, and students. Further, we find\\n that Sensabaugh’s actions and statements intimidated, demeaned, and undermined\\n both his co-workers and his supervisors. We find that, in light of this conduct,\\n Principal Wright was justified in placing Sensabaugh on administrative leave on\\n October 10, 2017.\\n Moreover, it is inconceivable to these investigators that anyone could repeatedly\\n speak to his or her supervisors and co-workers in such a belligerent and\\n confrontational manner and still expect to maintain an employment relationship.\\n Furthermore, we believe that Sensabaugh’s lack of civility and failure to treat\\n others with dignity and respect forecloses any possibility of reinstatement. In the\\n investigators’ opinions, Sensabaugh’s behavior warrants his permanent removal\\n from the position of Head Football Coach at DCHS, and we recommend that\\n Sensabaugh’s employment with DCHS be terminated.\\n\\n While the investigation was ongoing, Sensabaugh filed suit against Halliburton and the\\nBoard. Just over a month later, Halliburton notified Sensabaugh that the independent\\n\\f No. 18-6329 Sensabaugh v. Halliburton, et al. Page 6\\n\\n\\ninvestigators had completed their investigation and had recommended his termination.\\nHalliburton summarized the investigators’ findings and recommendation in a letter, but offered\\nthe following:\\n\\n Before I make a final decision regarding your continued employment, I wish to\\n give you every opportunity to respond to Attorney Baker’s investigation. . . . I am\\n asking you to provide me with any written statements or other evidence you wish\\n me to consider in your defense, whether in rebuttal to Attorney Baker’s findings\\n or in support of a less severe punishment. Alternatively, you may request a\\n meeting with me to present your defense and to explain why I should not\\n terminate you.\\n\\nSensabaugh never responded to Halliburton’s letter, and Halliburton terminated Sensabaugh’s\\nemployment on March 15, 2018.\\n\\n Sensabaugh then amended his complaint to include claims based on his termination.\\nHalliburton moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, and the Board moved to\\ndismiss for failure to state a claim. The district court granted the motions, holding that\\nSensabaugh had not shown a violation of his First Amendment rights, and without an underlying\\nconstitutional violation, Sensabaugh’s claim against the Board also failed. Sensabaugh appealed.\\n\\n II.\\n\\n Sensabaugh argues that Halliburton retaliated against him for exercising his First\\nAmendment right to speak in the form of two Facebook posts. To prevail on his First\\nAmendment retaliation claim, Sensabaugh must show:\\n\\n (1) [he] engaged in protected conduct; (2) an adverse action was taken against\\n [him] that would deter a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in\\n that conduct; and (3) there is a causal connection between elements one and\\n two—that is, the adverse action was motivated at least in part by [his] protected\\n conduct.\\n\\nBell v. Johnson, 308 F.3d 594, 602 (6th Cir. 2002) (quoting Thaddeus-X v. Blatter, 175 F.3d 378,\\n394 (6th Cir. 1999) (en banc)). If he makes this showing, “the burden then shifts to the employer\\nto demonstrate ‘by a preponderance of the evidence that the employment decision would have\\nbeen the same absent the protected conduct.’” Dye v. Office of the Racing Comm’n, 702 F.3d\\n286, 294 (6th Cir. 2012) (quoting Eckerman v. Tenn. Dep’t of Safety, 636 F.3d 202, 208 (6th Cir.\\n\\f No. 18-6329 Sensabaugh v. Halliburton, et al. Page 7\\n\\n\\n2010)). If the employer makes such a showing, “summary judgment is warranted if, in light of\\nthe evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, no reasonable juror could fail to\\nreturn a verdict for the defendant.” Id. at 294–95 (quoting Eckerman, 636 F.3d at 208).\\nHalliburton disputes Sensabaugh’s First Amendment retaliation claim and also asserts qualified\\nimmunity. When a state official raises a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff must show the\\nviolation of a clearly established constitutional right. Harris v. Klare, 902 F.3d 630, 637 (6th\\nCir. 2018).\\n\\n The district court concluded that Sensabaugh could not show that the Letter of Guidance,\\nthe Letter of Reprimand, or his termination violated the First Amendment. While there is no\\ndispute that Sensabaugh’s Facebook posts constituted protected speech,1 the district court\\ndetermined that the Letters did not constitute adverse actions, and that Sensabaugh could not\\nshow any causal connection between the Facebook posts and his termination. We address these\\nconclusions in turn.\\n\\n Letter of Guidance and Letter of Reprimand. Sensabaugh first challenges the district\\ncourt’s determination that the Letters of Guidance and Reprimand did not constitute adverse\\nactions. To establish an adverse action for First Amendment retaliation purposes, “a plaintiff\\nmust show that the action ‘would chill or silence a person of ordinary firmness from future First\\nAmendment activities.’” Benison v. Ross, 765 F.3d 649, 659 (6th Cir. 2014) (quoting Ctr. for\\nBio-Ethical Reform, Inc. v. City of Springboro, 477 F.3d 807, 822 (6th Cir. 2007)). But “[i]t is\\nnot necessarily true . . . that every action, no matter how small, is constitutionally cognizable” as\\nan “adverse action.” Thaddeus-X, 175 F.3d at 396. In the employment context, “[t]he term\\n‘adverse action’ has traditionally referred to actions such as discharge, demotions, refusal to hire,\\nnonrenewal of contracts, and failure to promote.” Dye, 702 F.3d at 303 (alteration omitted)\\n(quoting Handy-Clay v. City of Memphis, 695 F.3d 531, 545 (6th Cir. 2012)).\\n\\n We agree with the district court that the Letter of Guidance was not an adverse action.\\nThe Letter had no detrimental effect on Sensabaugh’s job as head football coach. As the district\\ncourt noted, “[t]he issuance of the Letter of Guidance did not itself impose any discipline or alter\\n\\n 1\\n Sensabaugh does not contend that the photos he posted to Facebook were protected by the First\\nAmendment or that Halliburton’s request to have the photos removed violated his First Amendment rights.\\n\\f No. 18-6329 Sensabaugh v. Halliburton, et al. Page 8\\n\\n\\nSensabaugh’s employment conditions in any way.” Instead, it imposed directives that\\nSensabaugh had to follow to avoid discipline. The Letter expressly permitted Sensabaugh to\\nmaintain his First Amendment activities, by keeping the posts on Facebook, and notified\\nSensabaugh that he could post comments on social media in the future. As such, we cannot\\nconclude that the Letter of Guidance “would chill or silence a person of ordinary firmness from\\nfuture First Amendment activities.” Benison, 765 F.3d at 659.2\\n\\n The same goes for the Letter of Reprimand. The Letter of Reprimand amounted to a\\nsuspension with pay pending investigation by outside counsel. Several panels of this court have\\ndetermined that a suspension with pay does not constitute an adverse action. See, e.g., Ehrlich v.\\nKovack, 710 F. App’x 646, 650 (6th Cir. 2017) (First Amendment retaliation claim); Harris v.\\nDetroit Pub. Schs., 245 F. App’x 437, 443 (6th Cir. 2007) (same); Peltier v. United States,\\n388 F.3d 984, 988–89 (6th Cir. 2004) (Title VII discrimination claim). Sensabaugh makes no\\nattempt to grapple with this caselaw on appeal; yet it is his burden to show the violation of a\\nconstitutional right in order to overcome Halliburton’s assertion of qualified immunity. Johnson\\nv. Moseley, 790 F.3d 649, 653 (6th Cir. 2015). Sensabaugh has not shown that the Letter of\\nReprimand constitutes an adverse action.\\n\\n Termination. There is no dispute that Sensabaugh’s firing was an adverse action. But the\\ndistrict court found no causal connection between Sensabaugh’s Facebook posts and his\\ntermination. We agree.\\n\\n To show causation, Sensabaugh “must demonstrate ‘that the speech at issue represented a\\nsubstantial or motivating factor in the adverse employment action.’” Vereecke v. Huron Valley\\nSch. Dist., 609 F.3d 392, 400 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Rodgers v. Banks, 344 F.3d 587, 602 (6th\\n\\n 2\\n Sensabaugh also argues that Halliburton and Wright’s threat to ensure that he “would never coach football\\nagain anywhere” constitutes an adverse action, either separately or when considered in conjunction with the Letter\\nof Guidance. The district court did not consider the threat, perhaps because Sensabaugh’s complaint identified only\\nthe Letter of Guidance, the Letter of Reprimand, and his termination as adverse actions. In any event, threats alone\\nare generally not adverse actions for retaliation purposes. See Hornbeak-Denton v. Myers, 361 F. App’x 684, 689\\n(6th Cir. 2010) (citing Mitchell v. Vanderbilt Univ., 389 F.3d 177, 182 (6th Cir. 2004)). Does the threat in\\nconjunction with the Letter of Guidance make the Letter an adverse action? It does not. Despite any statements\\nmade during a “heated” phone conversation, the Letter of Guidance, issued a few days later, would have had no\\ndetrimental effect on Sensabaugh’s job, provided that he complied with reasonable requests related to his\\nprofessionalism and unrelated to the Facebook posts. Accordingly, even considering the Letter of Guidance in light\\nof the alleged threat, the Letter does not constitute an adverse action. See Thaddeus-X, 175 F.3d at 396.\\n\\f No. 18-6329 Sensabaugh v. Halliburton, et al. Page 9\\n\\n\\nCir. 2003)). “A ‘motivating factor’ is essentially but-for cause . . . .” Leonard v. Robinson,\\n477 F.3d 347, 355 (6th Cir. 2007).3\\n\\n Sensabaugh’s causation argument rests largely on temporal proximity. Without a doubt,\\nthe Letter of Guidance and the Letter of Reprimand came shortly after the Facebook posts. The\\ntermination, however, came almost six months later. And even if we agreed that temporal\\nproximity could provide a suggestion of causation here, temporal proximity alone is rarely, if\\never, sufficient to establish causation. See Vereecke, 609 F.3d at 400. There generally must be\\nother indicia of retaliatory conduct. Id.\\n\\n We see none here. At no time leading up to the termination did Halliburton ask or\\nrequire Sensabaugh to remove the Facebook posts. In fact, both the Letter of Guidance and\\nLetter of Reprimand explicitly acknowledged Sensabaugh’s right to comment on public concerns\\nthrough social media. Moreover, a thorough independent investigation preceded Sensabaugh’s\\ntermination; that investigation concluded that the misconduct allegations were substantiated in\\nfull or in part, and that the misconduct supported termination. Sensabaugh casts no doubt on the\\nimpartiality of the investigation. And the evidence shows that Halliburton relied on the\\ninvestigation when firing Sensabaugh.\\n\\n Halliburton offered Sensabaugh an opportunity to respond to the investigation before she\\nmade any final decision. Sensabaugh was offered similar opportunities in the Letter of Guidance\\nand the Letter of Reprimand. But he never responded or gave Halliburton reason to disbelieve\\nthe results of the independent investigation. And finally, Halliburton “relied upon the advice of\\nthe [Board’s] attorney who agreed that termination was the proper course” in the circumstances.\\n\\n In sum, when deciding to terminate Sensabaugh’s employment, Halliburton relied on,\\namong other things, the independent investigation, which went unrebutted by Sensabaugh, and\\n\\n 3\\n In challenging the district court’s causation determination, Sensabaugh argues that, pursuant to the\\nbalancing test set forth in Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563, 568 (1968), the defendants have failed to\\n“demonstrate[] that they have an overriding interest in maintaining the efficiency of the WCSD schools that\\noutweigh Coach Sensabaugh’s protected speech.” But the Pickering balancing test goes to the first element of a\\nFirst Amendment retaliation claim—whether a public employee such as Sensabaugh engaged in constitutionally\\nprotected speech. See Westmoreland v. Sutherland, 662 F.3d 714, 718–19 (6th Cir. 2011). The defendants have\\nconceded that the Facebook posts were constitutionally protected speech; accordingly, we need not employ\\nPickering.\\n\\f No. 18-6329 Sensabaugh v. Halliburton, et al. Page 10\\n\\n\\nthe advice of the Board’s attorney. There is no indication that Sensabaugh’s Facebook posts\\nplayed any part in the final decision; indeed, Halliburton repeatedly affirmed Sensabaugh’s right\\nto post them. Sensabaugh has not met his burden of showing that the Facebook posts were a\\nsubstantial or motivating factor in his termination. Leonard, 477 F.3d at 355. Accordingly, he\\nhas not shown that Halliburton violated his constitutional rights. Halliburton is entitled to\\nqualified immunity.\\n\\n III.\\n\\n Sensabaugh also sued the Board, alleging municipal liability pursuant to Monell v.\\nDepartment of Social Services of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). But because Halliburton did\\nnot violate Sensabaugh’s First Amendment rights, the municipal liability claim also fails.\\nRobertson v. Lucas, 753 F.3d 606, 622 (6th Cir. 2014) (“There can be no liability under Monell\\nwithout an underlying constitutional violation.”).\\n\\n ***\\n\\n We AFFIRM the judgment of the district court in favor of the defendants.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4434147/\", \"author_raw\": \"LARSEN, Circuit Judge\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"ROGERS"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"BUSH"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"LARSEN"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"ROGERS\": \", Circuit\", \"BUSH\": \", Circuit\", \"LARSEN\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4656894/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":8,"string":"8"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Gerald Sensabaugh v. Kimber Halliburton\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-08-27\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0216p.06\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\n\n\n\n GERALD SENSABAUGH, ┐\n Plaintiff-Appellant, │\n │\n > No. 18-6329\n v. │\n │\n │\n KIMBER HALLIBURTON, Individually and in her official │\n capacity as Director of Schools; WASHINGTON │\n COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, │\n Defendants-Appellees. │\n ┘\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court\n for the Eastern District of Tennessee at Greeneville.\n No. 2:18-cv-00011—Pamela Lynn Reeves, Chief District Judge.\n\n Decided and Filed: August 27, 2019\n\n Before: ROGERS, BUSH, and LARSEN, Circuit Judges.\n _________________\n\n COUNSEL\n\nON BRIEF: M.E. Buck Dougherty, DUNCAN, HATCHER, HOLLAND & FLEENOR, P.C.,\nChattanooga, Tennessee, for Appellant. Jeffrey M. Ward, MILLIGAN & COLEMAN PLLP,\nGreeneville, Tennessee, for Kimber Halliburton in her individual capacity. Samuel K. McPeak,\nHERRIN, MCPEAK & ASSOCIATES, Johnson City, Tennessee, for Appellees Washington\nCounty Board of Education and Kimber Halliburton in her official capacity.\n\n _________________\n\n OPINION\n _________________\n\n LARSEN, Circuit Judge. Gerald Sensabaugh, the former head football coach at David\nCrockett High School in Washington County, Tennessee, made two Facebook posts expressing\nhis concerns about the conditions and practices of schools within the Washington County School\n\f No. 18-6329 Sensabaugh v. Halliburton, et al. Page 2\n\n\nDistrict. He claims that he was fired as a result. He sued School Director Kimber Halliburton,\nraising a First Amendment retaliation claim, and the Washington County Board of Education\n(the Board), raising a municipal liability claim. The district court granted summary judgment to\nHalliburton because Sensabaugh had failed to show that Halliburton had violated his\nconstitutional rights. And because Sensabaugh had failed to establish an underlying\nconstitutional violation, his municipal liability claim against the Board also failed. For the\nreasons stated, we AFFIRM.\n\n I.\n\n Sensabaugh became head football coach at David Crockett High School in 2017. The\nschool is within the Washington County School District and is overseen by the Board.\nHalliburton is the Director of Schools for the Washington County School District. Sensabaugh’s\nimmediate supervisor was Athletic Director Josh Kite, and his ultimate supervisor was Principal\nPeggy Wright.\n\n On September 22, 2017, Sensabaugh visited an elementary school within the district.\nThe visit was unrelated to his job. After the visit, Sensabaugh posted on Facebook, decrying the\nconditions of the elementary school. His post included photos of the classroom, and one photo\nshowed the faces of several students. Upon seeing the post, the elementary school principal\ncontacted the district’s Director of Human Resources, Susan Kiernan; the principal relayed his\nconcern that the posts might violate the law or school policy because the school might not have\nobtained parental consent to show the students’ faces. Kiernan relayed these concerns to Wright\nand Halliburton.\n\n Halliburton, believing “that the public posting of a photo showing a child’s face could be\nviolative of both the [Board’s] policy and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act,”\ncontacted the Board’s attorney, Thomas Seeley. Wright and Halliburton tried to call Sensabaugh\nto “instruct him to immediately remove any photo showing a child’s face—but not any posts or\nother content.” But Sensabaugh did not answer the calls. Halliburton did briefly communicate\nwith Sensabaugh by text message that evening. So did Wright, whose text told Sensabaugh to\nremove the photos from Facebook. Sensabaugh did not comply.\n\f No. 18-6329 Sensabaugh v. Halliburton, et al. Page 3\n\n\n Two days later, Sensabaugh again posted on Facebook; this post discussed his concerns\nwith prisoners working at the high school. Halliburton texted Sensabaugh after reading the post,\ntelling him: “I see you’ve posted something else before knowing all the facts. Uncertain why\nyou are not taking my calls. I really would like to speak to you.” Later that day, Wright and\nHalliburton spoke with Sensabaugh on the phone. According to Halliburton:\n\n Wright and I spoke to Sensabaugh by phone, and attempted to address the safety\n concerns that Sensabaugh raised and again requested that he remove any photo(s)\n of the Jonesborough Elementary School children from Facebook; we advised\n Sensabaugh that he did not need to take down the post, just the photo(s) of the\n students . . . . During this phone conversation, Sensabaugh yelled at us and told\n us that he was not taking the photo down. Then, he hung up on us.\n\nWright recounted the telephone call similarly, noting that Sensabaugh “repeatedly interrupted us\nand he yelled at us” and that “Halliburton and I could not believe that Sensabaugh would speak\nto his supervisors in this manner.” Halliburton also explained, “During my more than fifteen\nyears as a supervisor[] in the education field, I have never had an employee speak to me the way\nthat Sensabaugh spoke to Wright and me in that September 24, 2017 phone call.” Sensabaugh\nexplained the conversation as follows:\n\n It was a very heated phone conversation and Director Halliburton and Principal\n Wright threatened me with my job as head football coach. Director Halliburton\n and Principal Wright both told me that they “could make it where I would never\n coach football again anywhere.”\n\nAfter the conversation, Sensabaugh sent a text message to Halliburton that read: “Just let me\nknow the next step. Fire me or deal with it.”\n\n Based on Sensabaugh’s conduct during the phone call, Halliburton consulted attorney\nSeeley on how to proceed with “some level of corrective action.” Although Halliburton wanted\nto fire Sensabaugh, Seeley recommended “a letter to address the issues with him and give him a\nchance to correct his behavior.” Wright and Halliburton drafted a Letter of Guidance, which\naddressed not only Sensabaugh’s failure to remove the photos from Facebook and his conduct\nduring the phone call, but other alleged misconduct, including his use of profane language with\nstudents and his requiring a student to practice while injured. The letter again directed\nSensabaugh to remove the photos from Facebook but stated, “At no time did we ask you to\n\f No. 18-6329 Sensabaugh v. Halliburton, et al. Page 4\n\n\ndelete any of your comments or opinions on social media. You have the right to comment on\nmatters of public interest on social media.” The letter concluded, “Failure to follow my\ndirectives may lead to discipline up to and including termination as our football coach.” After\nreceiving the letter, Sensabaugh removed the photos from Facebook.\n\n Wright gave Sensabaugh the Letter of Guidance at a meeting on October 6, 2017, during\nwhich Wright claims that Sensabaugh “became agitated and began pacing back and forth. As the\nmeeting progressed, he became belligerent and confrontational.” According to Wright,\n“Sensabaugh interrupted my attempt to read him the letter, but ultimately let me finish reading\nit.” “At the meeting, Sensabaugh “accused his immediate supervisor, [Athletic Director] Kite, of\ncoming to work ‘high’ on the prescription medication, Oxycodone.” Wright stated, “Sensabaugh\nthreatened to expose Kite to the media if we took any further action related to Sensabaugh’s\nconduct.” At this same meeting, Sensabaugh also claimed knowledge of a student’s having\nbrought a gun to school. In a subsequent interview, Sensabaugh stated that the claim was\nhypothetical and meant to illustrate that allegations of wrongdoing are easy to make but difficult\nto prove. However, Sensabaugh acknowledged having heard an unsubstantiated rumor that a\nstudent brought either a shotgun or BB gun to school. Wright later explained: “I was very\nconcerned that Sensabaugh waited until his own conduct was being addressed to bring up\nsomething that should have been reported immediately.”\n\n After the Letter of Guidance meeting, Sensabaugh went straight to the cafeteria where he\nconfronted an athletic trainer and the injured student whom Sensabaugh had allegedly forced to\npractice. Later that night, Sensabaugh allegedly directed profanity toward his football players\nduring a game, in direct violation of the Letter of Guidance. And Sensabaugh allegedly went\naround proclaiming “loudly so that everyone around, including students, could hear: ‘Josh Kite\nhas a drug problem and has offered me Oxycodone. He carries it around the school and I don’t\ncare who hears me.’” During a later independent investigation, Sensabaugh denied having\ndirected profanity at the students that night and making such statements about Kite.\n\n Sensabaugh’s conduct following the Letter of Guidance meeting prompted Wright to\ncontact attorney Seeley to report her concern “that Sensabaugh posed a threat to the safety of the\nstudents and staff.” Although Wright initially wished to fire Sensabaugh, she and Halliburton\n\f No. 18-6329 Sensabaugh v. Halliburton, et al. Page 5\n\n\nultimately agreed with Seeley’s recommendation to instead issue a Letter of Reprimand. The\nLetter of Reprimand recounted the incidents leading up to its issuance, placed Sensabaugh on\nadministrative leave pending a full investigation by an independent law firm, and warned\nSensabaugh that termination of his employment was possible. Wright testified that “Sensabaugh\nwas extremely rude and insubordinate” when she read him the Letter of Reprimand and\nexplained that “[i]f Sensabaugh w[ere] not already being suspended and investigated, [she]\nwould have immediately recommended his termination based upon his conduct.”\n\n An independent law firm painstakingly investigated the alleged misconduct, interviewing\n“seventeen different witnesses who were identified as potentially having relevant knowledge or\ninformation” and reviewing scores of documents and text messages. This included a lengthy\ninterview with Sensabaugh. The investigators concluded that Sensabaugh had used profanity\nand had failed to follow instructions to remove the photos from Facebook until after the Letter of\nGuidance meeting. They determined that Sensabaugh had been unprofessional and insubordinate\nduring the Letter of Guidance and Letter of Reprimand meetings as well as, afterward, in his\nretaliation against the athletic trainer and student-athlete in the cafeteria. And they found the\nallegations of Sensabaugh’s failure to report safety concerns and to follow orders regarding\npracticing injured players partially substantiated. The investigators’ report concluded:\n\n [W]e find that Sensabaugh engaged in unprofessional, insubordinate, threatening\n and retaliatory behavior towards supervisors, staff, and students. Further, we find\n that Sensabaugh’s actions and statements intimidated, demeaned, and undermined\n both his co-workers and his supervisors. We find that, in light of this conduct,\n Principal Wright was justified in placing Sensabaugh on administrative leave on\n October 10, 2017.\n Moreover, it is inconceivable to these investigators that anyone could repeatedly\n speak to his or her supervisors and co-workers in such a belligerent and\n confrontational manner and still expect to maintain an employment relationship.\n Furthermore, we believe that Sensabaugh’s lack of civility and failure to treat\n others with dignity and respect forecloses any possibility of reinstatement. In the\n investigators’ opinions, Sensabaugh’s behavior warrants his permanent removal\n from the position of Head Football Coach at DCHS, and we recommend that\n Sensabaugh’s employment with DCHS be terminated.\n\n While the investigation was ongoing, Sensabaugh filed suit against Halliburton and the\nBoard. Just over a month later, Halliburton notified Sensabaugh that the independent\n\f No. 18-6329 Sensabaugh v. Halliburton, et al. Page 6\n\n\ninvestigators had completed their investigation and had recommended his termination.\nHalliburton summarized the investigators’ findings and recommendation in a letter, but offered\nthe following:\n\n Before I make a final decision regarding your continued employment, I wish to\n give you every opportunity to respond to Attorney Baker’s investigation. . . . I am\n asking you to provide me with any written statements or other evidence you wish\n me to consider in your defense, whether in rebuttal to Attorney Baker’s findings\n or in support of a less severe punishment. Alternatively, you may request a\n meeting with me to present your defense and to explain why I should not\n terminate you.\n\nSensabaugh never responded to Halliburton’s letter, and Halliburton terminated Sensabaugh’s\nemployment on March 15, 2018.\n\n Sensabaugh then amended his complaint to include claims based on his termination.\nHalliburton moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, and the Board moved to\ndismiss for failure to state a claim. The district court granted the motions, holding that\nSensabaugh had not shown a violation of his First Amendment rights, and without an underlying\nconstitutional violation, Sensabaugh’s claim against the Board also failed. Sensabaugh appealed.\n\n II.\n\n Sensabaugh argues that Halliburton retaliated against him for exercising his First\nAmendment right to speak in the form of two Facebook posts. To prevail on his First\nAmendment retaliation claim, Sensabaugh must show:\n\n (1) [he] engaged in protected conduct; (2) an adverse action was taken against\n [him] that would deter a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in\n that conduct; and (3) there is a causal connection between elements one and\n two—that is, the adverse action was motivated at least in part by [his] protected\n conduct.\n\nBell v. Johnson, 308 F.3d 594, 602 (6th Cir. 2002) (quoting Thaddeus-X v. Blatter, 175 F.3d 378,\n394 (6th Cir. 1999) (en banc)). If he makes this showing, “the burden then shifts to the employer\nto demonstrate ‘by a preponderance of the evidence that the employment decision would have\nbeen the same absent the protected conduct.’” Dye v. Office of the Racing Comm’n, 702 F.3d\n286, 294 (6th Cir. 2012) (quoting Eckerman v. Tenn. Dep’t of Safety, 636 F.3d 202, 208 (6th Cir.\n\f No. 18-6329 Sensabaugh v. Halliburton, et al. Page 7\n\n\n2010)). If the employer makes such a showing, “summary judgment is warranted if, in light of\nthe evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, no reasonable juror could fail to\nreturn a verdict for the defendant.” Id. at 294–95 (quoting Eckerman, 636 F.3d at 208).\nHalliburton disputes Sensabaugh’s First Amendment retaliation claim and also asserts qualified\nimmunity. When a state official raises a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff must show the\nviolation of a clearly established constitutional right. Harris v. Klare, 902 F.3d 630, 637 (6th\nCir. 2018).\n\n The district court concluded that Sensabaugh could not show that the Letter of Guidance,\nthe Letter of Reprimand, or his termination violated the First Amendment. While there is no\ndispute that Sensabaugh’s Facebook posts constituted protected speech,1 the district court\ndetermined that the Letters did not constitute adverse actions, and that Sensabaugh could not\nshow any causal connection between the Facebook posts and his termination. We address these\nconclusions in turn.\n\n Letter of Guidance and Letter of Reprimand. Sensabaugh first challenges the district\ncourt’s determination that the Letters of Guidance and Reprimand did not constitute adverse\nactions. To establish an adverse action for First Amendment retaliation purposes, “a plaintiff\nmust show that the action ‘would chill or silence a person of ordinary firmness from future First\nAmendment activities.’” Benison v. Ross, 765 F.3d 649, 659 (6th Cir. 2014) (quoting Ctr. for\nBio-Ethical Reform, Inc. v. City of Springboro, 477 F.3d 807, 822 (6th Cir. 2007)). But “[i]t is\nnot necessarily true . . . that every action, no matter how small, is constitutionally cognizable” as\nan “adverse action.” Thaddeus-X, 175 F.3d at 396. In the employment context, “[t]he term\n‘adverse action’ has traditionally referred to actions such as discharge, demotions, refusal to hire,\nnonrenewal of contracts, and failure to promote.” Dye, 702 F.3d at 303 (alteration omitted)\n(quoting Handy-Clay v. City of Memphis, 695 F.3d 531, 545 (6th Cir. 2012)).\n\n We agree with the district court that the Letter of Guidance was not an adverse action.\nThe Letter had no detrimental effect on Sensabaugh’s job as head football coach. As the district\ncourt noted, “[t]he issuance of the Letter of Guidance did not itself impose any discipline or alter\n\n 1\n Sensabaugh does not contend that the photos he posted to Facebook were protected by the First\nAmendment or that Halliburton’s request to have the photos removed violated his First Amendment rights.\n\f No. 18-6329 Sensabaugh v. Halliburton, et al. Page 8\n\n\nSensabaugh’s employment conditions in any way.” Instead, it imposed directives that\nSensabaugh had to follow to avoid discipline. The Letter expressly permitted Sensabaugh to\nmaintain his First Amendment activities, by keeping the posts on Facebook, and notified\nSensabaugh that he could post comments on social media in the future. As such, we cannot\nconclude that the Letter of Guidance “would chill or silence a person of ordinary firmness from\nfuture First Amendment activities.” Benison, 765 F.3d at 659.2\n\n The same goes for the Letter of Reprimand. The Letter of Reprimand amounted to a\nsuspension with pay pending investigation by outside counsel. Several panels of this court have\ndetermined that a suspension with pay does not constitute an adverse action. See, e.g., Ehrlich v.\nKovack, 710 F. App’x 646, 650 (6th Cir. 2017) (First Amendment retaliation claim); Harris v.\nDetroit Pub. Schs., 245 F. App’x 437, 443 (6th Cir. 2007) (same); Peltier v. United States,\n388 F.3d 984, 988–89 (6th Cir. 2004) (Title VII discrimination claim). Sensabaugh makes no\nattempt to grapple with this caselaw on appeal; yet it is his burden to show the violation of a\nconstitutional right in order to overcome Halliburton’s assertion of qualified immunity. Johnson\nv. Moseley, 790 F.3d 649, 653 (6th Cir. 2015). Sensabaugh has not shown that the Letter of\nReprimand constitutes an adverse action.\n\n Termination. There is no dispute that Sensabaugh’s firing was an adverse action. But the\ndistrict court found no causal connection between Sensabaugh’s Facebook posts and his\ntermination. We agree.\n\n To show causation, Sensabaugh “must demonstrate ‘that the speech at issue represented a\nsubstantial or motivating factor in the adverse employment action.’” Vereecke v. Huron Valley\nSch. Dist., 609 F.3d 392, 400 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Rodgers v. Banks, 344 F.3d 587, 602 (6th\n\n 2\n Sensabaugh also argues that Halliburton and Wright’s threat to ensure that he “would never coach football\nagain anywhere” constitutes an adverse action, either separately or when considered in conjunction with the Letter\nof Guidance. The district court did not consider the threat, perhaps because Sensabaugh’s complaint identified only\nthe Letter of Guidance, the Letter of Reprimand, and his termination as adverse actions. In any event, threats alone\nare generally not adverse actions for retaliation purposes. See Hornbeak-Denton v. Myers, 361 F. App’x 684, 689\n(6th Cir. 2010) (citing Mitchell v. Vanderbilt Univ., 389 F.3d 177, 182 (6th Cir. 2004)). Does the threat in\nconjunction with the Letter of Guidance make the Letter an adverse action? It does not. Despite any statements\nmade during a “heated” phone conversation, the Letter of Guidance, issued a few days later, would have had no\ndetrimental effect on Sensabaugh’s job, provided that he complied with reasonable requests related to his\nprofessionalism and unrelated to the Facebook posts. Accordingly, even considering the Letter of Guidance in light\nof the alleged threat, the Letter does not constitute an adverse action. See Thaddeus-X, 175 F.3d at 396.\n\f No. 18-6329 Sensabaugh v. Halliburton, et al. Page 9\n\n\nCir. 2003)). “A ‘motivating factor’ is essentially but-for cause . . . .” Leonard v. Robinson,\n477 F.3d 347, 355 (6th Cir. 2007).3\n\n Sensabaugh’s causation argument rests largely on temporal proximity. Without a doubt,\nthe Letter of Guidance and the Letter of Reprimand came shortly after the Facebook posts. The\ntermination, however, came almost six months later. And even if we agreed that temporal\nproximity could provide a suggestion of causation here, temporal proximity alone is rarely, if\never, sufficient to establish causation. See Vereecke, 609 F.3d at 400. There generally must be\nother indicia of retaliatory conduct. Id.\n\n We see none here. At no time leading up to the termination did Halliburton ask or\nrequire Sensabaugh to remove the Facebook posts. In fact, both the Letter of Guidance and\nLetter of Reprimand explicitly acknowledged Sensabaugh’s right to comment on public concerns\nthrough social media. Moreover, a thorough independent investigation preceded Sensabaugh’s\ntermination; that investigation concluded that the misconduct allegations were substantiated in\nfull or in part, and that the misconduct supported termination. Sensabaugh casts no doubt on the\nimpartiality of the investigation. And the evidence shows that Halliburton relied on the\ninvestigation when firing Sensabaugh.\n\n Halliburton offered Sensabaugh an opportunity to respond to the investigation before she\nmade any final decision. Sensabaugh was offered similar opportunities in the Letter of Guidance\nand the Letter of Reprimand. But he never responded or gave Halliburton reason to disbelieve\nthe results of the independent investigation. And finally, Halliburton “relied upon the advice of\nthe [Board’s] attorney who agreed that termination was the proper course” in the circumstances.\n\n In sum, when deciding to terminate Sensabaugh’s employment, Halliburton relied on,\namong other things, the independent investigation, which went unrebutted by Sensabaugh, and\n\n 3\n In challenging the district court’s causation determination, Sensabaugh argues that, pursuant to the\nbalancing test set forth in Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563, 568 (1968), the defendants have failed to\n“demonstrate[] that they have an overriding interest in maintaining the efficiency of the WCSD schools that\noutweigh Coach Sensabaugh’s protected speech.” But the Pickering balancing test goes to the first element of a\nFirst Amendment retaliation claim—whether a public employee such as Sensabaugh engaged in constitutionally\nprotected speech. See Westmoreland v. Sutherland, 662 F.3d 714, 718–19 (6th Cir. 2011). The defendants have\nconceded that the Facebook posts were constitutionally protected speech; accordingly, we need not employ\nPickering.\n\f No. 18-6329 Sensabaugh v. Halliburton, et al. Page 10\n\n\nthe advice of the Board’s attorney. There is no indication that Sensabaugh’s Facebook posts\nplayed any part in the final decision; indeed, Halliburton repeatedly affirmed Sensabaugh’s right\nto post them. Sensabaugh has not met his burden of showing that the Facebook posts were a\nsubstantial or motivating factor in his termination. Leonard, 477 F.3d at 355. Accordingly, he\nhas not shown that Halliburton violated his constitutional rights. Halliburton is entitled to\nqualified immunity.\n\n III.\n\n Sensabaugh also sued the Board, alleging municipal liability pursuant to Monell v.\nDepartment of Social Services of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). But because Halliburton did\nnot violate Sensabaugh’s First Amendment rights, the municipal liability claim also fails.\nRobertson v. Lucas, 753 F.3d 606, 622 (6th Cir. 2014) (“There can be no liability under Monell\nwithout an underlying constitutional violation.”).\n\n ***\n\n We AFFIRM the judgment of the district court in favor of the defendants.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Gerald Sensabaugh v. Kimber Halliburton\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-08-27\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0216p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n GERALD SENSABAUGH, ┐\\n Plaintiff-Appellant, │\\n │\\n > No. 18-6329\\n v. │\\n │\\n │\\n KIMBER HALLIBURTON, Individually and in her official │\\n capacity as Director of Schools; WASHINGTON │\\n COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, │\\n Defendants-Appellees. │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Eastern District of Tennessee at Greeneville.\\n No. 2:18-cv-00011—Pamela Lynn Reeves, Chief District Judge.\\n\\n Decided and Filed: August 27, 2019\\n\\n Before: ROGERS, BUSH, and LARSEN, Circuit Judges.\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nON BRIEF: M.E. Buck Dougherty, DUNCAN, HATCHER, HOLLAND & FLEENOR, P.C.,\\nChattanooga, Tennessee, for Appellant. Jeffrey M. Ward, MILLIGAN & COLEMAN PLLP,\\nGreeneville, Tennessee, for Kimber Halliburton in her individual capacity. Samuel K. McPeak,\\nHERRIN, MCPEAK & ASSOCIATES, Johnson City, Tennessee, for Appellees Washington\\nCounty Board of Education and Kimber Halliburton in her official capacity.\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n LARSEN, Circuit Judge. Gerald Sensabaugh, the former head football coach at David\\nCrockett High School in Washington County, Tennessee, made two Facebook posts expressing\\nhis concerns about the conditions and practices of schools within the Washington County School\\n\\f No. 18-6329 Sensabaugh v. Halliburton, et al. Page 2\\n\\n\\nDistrict. He claims that he was fired as a result. He sued School Director Kimber Halliburton,\\nraising a First Amendment retaliation claim, and the Washington County Board of Education\\n(the Board), raising a municipal liability claim. The district court granted summary judgment to\\nHalliburton because Sensabaugh had failed to show that Halliburton had violated his\\nconstitutional rights. And because Sensabaugh had failed to establish an underlying\\nconstitutional violation, his municipal liability claim against the Board also failed. For the\\nreasons stated, we AFFIRM.\\n\\n I.\\n\\n Sensabaugh became head football coach at David Crockett High School in 2017. The\\nschool is within the Washington County School District and is overseen by the Board.\\nHalliburton is the Director of Schools for the Washington County School District. Sensabaugh’s\\nimmediate supervisor was Athletic Director Josh Kite, and his ultimate supervisor was Principal\\nPeggy Wright.\\n\\n On September 22, 2017, Sensabaugh visited an elementary school within the district.\\nThe visit was unrelated to his job. After the visit, Sensabaugh posted on Facebook, decrying the\\nconditions of the elementary school. His post included photos of the classroom, and one photo\\nshowed the faces of several students. Upon seeing the post, the elementary school principal\\ncontacted the district’s Director of Human Resources, Susan Kiernan; the principal relayed his\\nconcern that the posts might violate the law or school policy because the school might not have\\nobtained parental consent to show the students’ faces. Kiernan relayed these concerns to Wright\\nand Halliburton.\\n\\n Halliburton, believing “that the public posting of a photo showing a child’s face could be\\nviolative of both the [Board’s] policy and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act,”\\ncontacted the Board’s attorney, Thomas Seeley. Wright and Halliburton tried to call Sensabaugh\\nto “instruct him to immediately remove any photo showing a child’s face—but not any posts or\\nother content.” But Sensabaugh did not answer the calls. Halliburton did briefly communicate\\nwith Sensabaugh by text message that evening. So did Wright, whose text told Sensabaugh to\\nremove the photos from Facebook. Sensabaugh did not comply.\\n\\f No. 18-6329 Sensabaugh v. Halliburton, et al. Page 3\\n\\n\\n Two days later, Sensabaugh again posted on Facebook; this post discussed his concerns\\nwith prisoners working at the high school. Halliburton texted Sensabaugh after reading the post,\\ntelling him: “I see you’ve posted something else before knowing all the facts. Uncertain why\\nyou are not taking my calls. I really would like to speak to you.” Later that day, Wright and\\nHalliburton spoke with Sensabaugh on the phone. According to Halliburton:\\n\\n Wright and I spoke to Sensabaugh by phone, and attempted to address the safety\\n concerns that Sensabaugh raised and again requested that he remove any photo(s)\\n of the Jonesborough Elementary School children from Facebook; we advised\\n Sensabaugh that he did not need to take down the post, just the photo(s) of the\\n students . . . . During this phone conversation, Sensabaugh yelled at us and told\\n us that he was not taking the photo down. Then, he hung up on us.\\n\\nWright recounted the telephone call similarly, noting that Sensabaugh “repeatedly interrupted us\\nand he yelled at us” and that “Halliburton and I could not believe that Sensabaugh would speak\\nto his supervisors in this manner.” Halliburton also explained, “During my more than fifteen\\nyears as a supervisor[] in the education field, I have never had an employee speak to me the way\\nthat Sensabaugh spoke to Wright and me in that September 24, 2017 phone call.” Sensabaugh\\nexplained the conversation as follows:\\n\\n It was a very heated phone conversation and Director Halliburton and Principal\\n Wright threatened me with my job as head football coach. Director Halliburton\\n and Principal Wright both told me that they “could make it where I would never\\n coach football again anywhere.”\\n\\nAfter the conversation, Sensabaugh sent a text message to Halliburton that read: “Just let me\\nknow the next step. Fire me or deal with it.”\\n\\n Based on Sensabaugh’s conduct during the phone call, Halliburton consulted attorney\\nSeeley on how to proceed with “some level of corrective action.” Although Halliburton wanted\\nto fire Sensabaugh, Seeley recommended “a letter to address the issues with him and give him a\\nchance to correct his behavior.” Wright and Halliburton drafted a Letter of Guidance, which\\naddressed not only Sensabaugh’s failure to remove the photos from Facebook and his conduct\\nduring the phone call, but other alleged misconduct, including his use of profane language with\\nstudents and his requiring a student to practice while injured. The letter again directed\\nSensabaugh to remove the photos from Facebook but stated, “At no time did we ask you to\\n\\f No. 18-6329 Sensabaugh v. Halliburton, et al. Page 4\\n\\n\\ndelete any of your comments or opinions on social media. You have the right to comment on\\nmatters of public interest on social media.” The letter concluded, “Failure to follow my\\ndirectives may lead to discipline up to and including termination as our football coach.” After\\nreceiving the letter, Sensabaugh removed the photos from Facebook.\\n\\n Wright gave Sensabaugh the Letter of Guidance at a meeting on October 6, 2017, during\\nwhich Wright claims that Sensabaugh “became agitated and began pacing back and forth. As the\\nmeeting progressed, he became belligerent and confrontational.” According to Wright,\\n“Sensabaugh interrupted my attempt to read him the letter, but ultimately let me finish reading\\nit.” “At the meeting, Sensabaugh “accused his immediate supervisor, [Athletic Director] Kite, of\\ncoming to work ‘high’ on the prescription medication, Oxycodone.” Wright stated, “Sensabaugh\\nthreatened to expose Kite to the media if we took any further action related to Sensabaugh’s\\nconduct.” At this same meeting, Sensabaugh also claimed knowledge of a student’s having\\nbrought a gun to school. In a subsequent interview, Sensabaugh stated that the claim was\\nhypothetical and meant to illustrate that allegations of wrongdoing are easy to make but difficult\\nto prove. However, Sensabaugh acknowledged having heard an unsubstantiated rumor that a\\nstudent brought either a shotgun or BB gun to school. Wright later explained: “I was very\\nconcerned that Sensabaugh waited until his own conduct was being addressed to bring up\\nsomething that should have been reported immediately.”\\n\\n After the Letter of Guidance meeting, Sensabaugh went straight to the cafeteria where he\\nconfronted an athletic trainer and the injured student whom Sensabaugh had allegedly forced to\\npractice. Later that night, Sensabaugh allegedly directed profanity toward his football players\\nduring a game, in direct violation of the Letter of Guidance. And Sensabaugh allegedly went\\naround proclaiming “loudly so that everyone around, including students, could hear: ‘Josh Kite\\nhas a drug problem and has offered me Oxycodone. He carries it around the school and I don’t\\ncare who hears me.’” During a later independent investigation, Sensabaugh denied having\\ndirected profanity at the students that night and making such statements about Kite.\\n\\n Sensabaugh’s conduct following the Letter of Guidance meeting prompted Wright to\\ncontact attorney Seeley to report her concern “that Sensabaugh posed a threat to the safety of the\\nstudents and staff.” Although Wright initially wished to fire Sensabaugh, she and Halliburton\\n\\f No. 18-6329 Sensabaugh v. Halliburton, et al. Page 5\\n\\n\\nultimately agreed with Seeley’s recommendation to instead issue a Letter of Reprimand. The\\nLetter of Reprimand recounted the incidents leading up to its issuance, placed Sensabaugh on\\nadministrative leave pending a full investigation by an independent law firm, and warned\\nSensabaugh that termination of his employment was possible. Wright testified that “Sensabaugh\\nwas extremely rude and insubordinate” when she read him the Letter of Reprimand and\\nexplained that “[i]f Sensabaugh w[ere] not already being suspended and investigated, [she]\\nwould have immediately recommended his termination based upon his conduct.”\\n\\n An independent law firm painstakingly investigated the alleged misconduct, interviewing\\n“seventeen different witnesses who were identified as potentially having relevant knowledge or\\ninformation” and reviewing scores of documents and text messages. This included a lengthy\\ninterview with Sensabaugh. The investigators concluded that Sensabaugh had used profanity\\nand had failed to follow instructions to remove the photos from Facebook until after the Letter of\\nGuidance meeting. They determined that Sensabaugh had been unprofessional and insubordinate\\nduring the Letter of Guidance and Letter of Reprimand meetings as well as, afterward, in his\\nretaliation against the athletic trainer and student-athlete in the cafeteria. And they found the\\nallegations of Sensabaugh’s failure to report safety concerns and to follow orders regarding\\npracticing injured players partially substantiated. The investigators’ report concluded:\\n\\n [W]e find that Sensabaugh engaged in unprofessional, insubordinate, threatening\\n and retaliatory behavior towards supervisors, staff, and students. Further, we find\\n that Sensabaugh’s actions and statements intimidated, demeaned, and undermined\\n both his co-workers and his supervisors. We find that, in light of this conduct,\\n Principal Wright was justified in placing Sensabaugh on administrative leave on\\n October 10, 2017.\\n Moreover, it is inconceivable to these investigators that anyone could repeatedly\\n speak to his or her supervisors and co-workers in such a belligerent and\\n confrontational manner and still expect to maintain an employment relationship.\\n Furthermore, we believe that Sensabaugh’s lack of civility and failure to treat\\n others with dignity and respect forecloses any possibility of reinstatement. In the\\n investigators’ opinions, Sensabaugh’s behavior warrants his permanent removal\\n from the position of Head Football Coach at DCHS, and we recommend that\\n Sensabaugh’s employment with DCHS be terminated.\\n\\n While the investigation was ongoing, Sensabaugh filed suit against Halliburton and the\\nBoard. Just over a month later, Halliburton notified Sensabaugh that the independent\\n\\f No. 18-6329 Sensabaugh v. Halliburton, et al. Page 6\\n\\n\\ninvestigators had completed their investigation and had recommended his termination.\\nHalliburton summarized the investigators’ findings and recommendation in a letter, but offered\\nthe following:\\n\\n Before I make a final decision regarding your continued employment, I wish to\\n give you every opportunity to respond to Attorney Baker’s investigation. . . . I am\\n asking you to provide me with any written statements or other evidence you wish\\n me to consider in your defense, whether in rebuttal to Attorney Baker’s findings\\n or in support of a less severe punishment. Alternatively, you may request a\\n meeting with me to present your defense and to explain why I should not\\n terminate you.\\n\\nSensabaugh never responded to Halliburton’s letter, and Halliburton terminated Sensabaugh’s\\nemployment on March 15, 2018.\\n\\n Sensabaugh then amended his complaint to include claims based on his termination.\\nHalliburton moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, and the Board moved to\\ndismiss for failure to state a claim. The district court granted the motions, holding that\\nSensabaugh had not shown a violation of his First Amendment rights, and without an underlying\\nconstitutional violation, Sensabaugh’s claim against the Board also failed. Sensabaugh appealed.\\n\\n II.\\n\\n Sensabaugh argues that Halliburton retaliated against him for exercising his First\\nAmendment right to speak in the form of two Facebook posts. To prevail on his First\\nAmendment retaliation claim, Sensabaugh must show:\\n\\n (1) [he] engaged in protected conduct; (2) an adverse action was taken against\\n [him] that would deter a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in\\n that conduct; and (3) there is a causal connection between elements one and\\n two—that is, the adverse action was motivated at least in part by [his] protected\\n conduct.\\n\\nBell v. Johnson, 308 F.3d 594, 602 (6th Cir. 2002) (quoting Thaddeus-X v. Blatter, 175 F.3d 378,\\n394 (6th Cir. 1999) (en banc)). If he makes this showing, “the burden then shifts to the employer\\nto demonstrate ‘by a preponderance of the evidence that the employment decision would have\\nbeen the same absent the protected conduct.’” Dye v. Office of the Racing Comm’n, 702 F.3d\\n286, 294 (6th Cir. 2012) (quoting Eckerman v. Tenn. Dep’t of Safety, 636 F.3d 202, 208 (6th Cir.\\n\\f No. 18-6329 Sensabaugh v. Halliburton, et al. Page 7\\n\\n\\n2010)). If the employer makes such a showing, “summary judgment is warranted if, in light of\\nthe evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, no reasonable juror could fail to\\nreturn a verdict for the defendant.” Id. at 294–95 (quoting Eckerman, 636 F.3d at 208).\\nHalliburton disputes Sensabaugh’s First Amendment retaliation claim and also asserts qualified\\nimmunity. When a state official raises a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff must show the\\nviolation of a clearly established constitutional right. Harris v. Klare, 902 F.3d 630, 637 (6th\\nCir. 2018).\\n\\n The district court concluded that Sensabaugh could not show that the Letter of Guidance,\\nthe Letter of Reprimand, or his termination violated the First Amendment. While there is no\\ndispute that Sensabaugh’s Facebook posts constituted protected speech,1 the district court\\ndetermined that the Letters did not constitute adverse actions, and that Sensabaugh could not\\nshow any causal connection between the Facebook posts and his termination. We address these\\nconclusions in turn.\\n\\n Letter of Guidance and Letter of Reprimand. Sensabaugh first challenges the district\\ncourt’s determination that the Letters of Guidance and Reprimand did not constitute adverse\\nactions. To establish an adverse action for First Amendment retaliation purposes, “a plaintiff\\nmust show that the action ‘would chill or silence a person of ordinary firmness from future First\\nAmendment activities.’” Benison v. Ross, 765 F.3d 649, 659 (6th Cir. 2014) (quoting Ctr. for\\nBio-Ethical Reform, Inc. v. City of Springboro, 477 F.3d 807, 822 (6th Cir. 2007)). But “[i]t is\\nnot necessarily true . . . that every action, no matter how small, is constitutionally cognizable” as\\nan “adverse action.” Thaddeus-X, 175 F.3d at 396. In the employment context, “[t]he term\\n‘adverse action’ has traditionally referred to actions such as discharge, demotions, refusal to hire,\\nnonrenewal of contracts, and failure to promote.” Dye, 702 F.3d at 303 (alteration omitted)\\n(quoting Handy-Clay v. City of Memphis, 695 F.3d 531, 545 (6th Cir. 2012)).\\n\\n We agree with the district court that the Letter of Guidance was not an adverse action.\\nThe Letter had no detrimental effect on Sensabaugh’s job as head football coach. As the district\\ncourt noted, “[t]he issuance of the Letter of Guidance did not itself impose any discipline or alter\\n\\n 1\\n Sensabaugh does not contend that the photos he posted to Facebook were protected by the First\\nAmendment or that Halliburton’s request to have the photos removed violated his First Amendment rights.\\n\\f No. 18-6329 Sensabaugh v. Halliburton, et al. Page 8\\n\\n\\nSensabaugh’s employment conditions in any way.” Instead, it imposed directives that\\nSensabaugh had to follow to avoid discipline. The Letter expressly permitted Sensabaugh to\\nmaintain his First Amendment activities, by keeping the posts on Facebook, and notified\\nSensabaugh that he could post comments on social media in the future. As such, we cannot\\nconclude that the Letter of Guidance “would chill or silence a person of ordinary firmness from\\nfuture First Amendment activities.” Benison, 765 F.3d at 659.2\\n\\n The same goes for the Letter of Reprimand. The Letter of Reprimand amounted to a\\nsuspension with pay pending investigation by outside counsel. Several panels of this court have\\ndetermined that a suspension with pay does not constitute an adverse action. See, e.g., Ehrlich v.\\nKovack, 710 F. App’x 646, 650 (6th Cir. 2017) (First Amendment retaliation claim); Harris v.\\nDetroit Pub. Schs., 245 F. App’x 437, 443 (6th Cir. 2007) (same); Peltier v. United States,\\n388 F.3d 984, 988–89 (6th Cir. 2004) (Title VII discrimination claim). Sensabaugh makes no\\nattempt to grapple with this caselaw on appeal; yet it is his burden to show the violation of a\\nconstitutional right in order to overcome Halliburton’s assertion of qualified immunity. Johnson\\nv. Moseley, 790 F.3d 649, 653 (6th Cir. 2015). Sensabaugh has not shown that the Letter of\\nReprimand constitutes an adverse action.\\n\\n Termination. There is no dispute that Sensabaugh’s firing was an adverse action. But the\\ndistrict court found no causal connection between Sensabaugh’s Facebook posts and his\\ntermination. We agree.\\n\\n To show causation, Sensabaugh “must demonstrate ‘that the speech at issue represented a\\nsubstantial or motivating factor in the adverse employment action.’” Vereecke v. Huron Valley\\nSch. Dist., 609 F.3d 392, 400 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Rodgers v. Banks, 344 F.3d 587, 602 (6th\\n\\n 2\\n Sensabaugh also argues that Halliburton and Wright’s threat to ensure that he “would never coach football\\nagain anywhere” constitutes an adverse action, either separately or when considered in conjunction with the Letter\\nof Guidance. The district court did not consider the threat, perhaps because Sensabaugh’s complaint identified only\\nthe Letter of Guidance, the Letter of Reprimand, and his termination as adverse actions. In any event, threats alone\\nare generally not adverse actions for retaliation purposes. See Hornbeak-Denton v. Myers, 361 F. App’x 684, 689\\n(6th Cir. 2010) (citing Mitchell v. Vanderbilt Univ., 389 F.3d 177, 182 (6th Cir. 2004)). Does the threat in\\nconjunction with the Letter of Guidance make the Letter an adverse action? It does not. Despite any statements\\nmade during a “heated” phone conversation, the Letter of Guidance, issued a few days later, would have had no\\ndetrimental effect on Sensabaugh’s job, provided that he complied with reasonable requests related to his\\nprofessionalism and unrelated to the Facebook posts. Accordingly, even considering the Letter of Guidance in light\\nof the alleged threat, the Letter does not constitute an adverse action. See Thaddeus-X, 175 F.3d at 396.\\n\\f No. 18-6329 Sensabaugh v. Halliburton, et al. Page 9\\n\\n\\nCir. 2003)). “A ‘motivating factor’ is essentially but-for cause . . . .” Leonard v. Robinson,\\n477 F.3d 347, 355 (6th Cir. 2007).3\\n\\n Sensabaugh’s causation argument rests largely on temporal proximity. Without a doubt,\\nthe Letter of Guidance and the Letter of Reprimand came shortly after the Facebook posts. The\\ntermination, however, came almost six months later. And even if we agreed that temporal\\nproximity could provide a suggestion of causation here, temporal proximity alone is rarely, if\\never, sufficient to establish causation. See Vereecke, 609 F.3d at 400. There generally must be\\nother indicia of retaliatory conduct. Id.\\n\\n We see none here. At no time leading up to the termination did Halliburton ask or\\nrequire Sensabaugh to remove the Facebook posts. In fact, both the Letter of Guidance and\\nLetter of Reprimand explicitly acknowledged Sensabaugh’s right to comment on public concerns\\nthrough social media. Moreover, a thorough independent investigation preceded Sensabaugh’s\\ntermination; that investigation concluded that the misconduct allegations were substantiated in\\nfull or in part, and that the misconduct supported termination. Sensabaugh casts no doubt on the\\nimpartiality of the investigation. And the evidence shows that Halliburton relied on the\\ninvestigation when firing Sensabaugh.\\n\\n Halliburton offered Sensabaugh an opportunity to respond to the investigation before she\\nmade any final decision. Sensabaugh was offered similar opportunities in the Letter of Guidance\\nand the Letter of Reprimand. But he never responded or gave Halliburton reason to disbelieve\\nthe results of the independent investigation. And finally, Halliburton “relied upon the advice of\\nthe [Board’s] attorney who agreed that termination was the proper course” in the circumstances.\\n\\n In sum, when deciding to terminate Sensabaugh’s employment, Halliburton relied on,\\namong other things, the independent investigation, which went unrebutted by Sensabaugh, and\\n\\n 3\\n In challenging the district court’s causation determination, Sensabaugh argues that, pursuant to the\\nbalancing test set forth in Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563, 568 (1968), the defendants have failed to\\n“demonstrate[] that they have an overriding interest in maintaining the efficiency of the WCSD schools that\\noutweigh Coach Sensabaugh’s protected speech.” But the Pickering balancing test goes to the first element of a\\nFirst Amendment retaliation claim—whether a public employee such as Sensabaugh engaged in constitutionally\\nprotected speech. See Westmoreland v. Sutherland, 662 F.3d 714, 718–19 (6th Cir. 2011). The defendants have\\nconceded that the Facebook posts were constitutionally protected speech; accordingly, we need not employ\\nPickering.\\n\\f No. 18-6329 Sensabaugh v. Halliburton, et al. Page 10\\n\\n\\nthe advice of the Board’s attorney. There is no indication that Sensabaugh’s Facebook posts\\nplayed any part in the final decision; indeed, Halliburton repeatedly affirmed Sensabaugh’s right\\nto post them. Sensabaugh has not met his burden of showing that the Facebook posts were a\\nsubstantial or motivating factor in his termination. Leonard, 477 F.3d at 355. Accordingly, he\\nhas not shown that Halliburton violated his constitutional rights. Halliburton is entitled to\\nqualified immunity.\\n\\n III.\\n\\n Sensabaugh also sued the Board, alleging municipal liability pursuant to Monell v.\\nDepartment of Social Services of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). But because Halliburton did\\nnot violate Sensabaugh’s First Amendment rights, the municipal liability claim also fails.\\nRobertson v. Lucas, 753 F.3d 606, 622 (6th Cir. 2014) (“There can be no liability under Monell\\nwithout an underlying constitutional violation.”).\\n\\n ***\\n\\n We AFFIRM the judgment of the district court in favor of the defendants.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3760,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4656892,"string":"4,656,892"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"CIC Services, LLC v. IRS"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-08-28"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-5019"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before: SUHRHEINRICH, CLAY, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"Clay's opinion for the court on the other. These three opinions together with then-Judge Kavanaugh’s opinion say all there is to say about the issue from a lower court judge’s perspective.\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0219p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n CIC SERVICES, LLC, ┐\\n Plaintiff-Appellant, │\\n │\\n > No. 18-5019\\n v. │\\n │\\n │\\n INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; DEPARTMENT OF │\\n TREASURY; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, │\\n Defendants-Appellees. │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville.\\n No. 3:17-cv-00110—Travis R. McDonough, District Judge.\\n\\n Argued: October 19, 2018\\n\\n Decided and Filed: August 28, 2019\\n\\n Before: SUHRHEINRICH, CLAY, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC AND REPLY: Adam R. Webber, ELLIOTT,\\nFAULKNER & WEBBER, Beavercreek, Ohio, Cameron T. Norris, CONSOVOY MCCARTHY\\nPLLC, Arlington, Virginia, for Appellant. ON RESPONSE: Teresa E. McLaughlin, Bethany B.\\nHauser, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.\\nON BRIEF: John J. Vecchione, CAUSE OF ACTION INSTITUTE, Washington, D.C., Kristin\\nE. Hickman, UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA LAW SCHOOL, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for\\nAmici Curiae.\\n\\n The panel issued an order denying the petition for rehearing en banc. CLAY, J. (pp. 3–5),\\ndelivered a separate opinion concurring in the denial of rehearing en banc. SUTTON, J.\\n(pp. 6–7), delivered a separate opinion concurring in the denial of rehearing en banc. THAPAR,\\nJ. (pp. 8–13), delivered a separate opinion dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc, in which\\nKETHLEDGE, BUSH, LARSEN, NALBANDIAN, READLER, and MURPHY, JJ., joined.\\n\\n No. 18-5019 CIC Services, LLC v. IRS, et al. Page 2\\n\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n ORDER\\n _________________\\n\\n The court received a petition for rehearing en banc. The original panel reviewed the\\npetition and concludes that the issues raised in the petition were fully considered upon the original\\nsubmission and decision. The petition was then circulated to the full court. Less than a majority\\nof the judges voted in favor of rehearing en banc.\\n\\n Therefore, the petition is denied.\\n\\n No. 18-5019 CIC Services, LLC v. IRS, et al. Page 3\\n\\n\\n _______________________________________________________________\\n\\n CONCURRENCE IN THE DENIAL OF REHEARING EN BANC\\n _______________________________________________________________\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4434145/\", \"author_raw\": \"Clay's opinion for the court on the other. These three opinions together with then-Judge Kavanaugh’s opinion say all there is to say about the issue from a lower court judge’s perspective.\"}, {\"author\": \"CLAY, Circuit Judge, concurring\", \"type\": \"concurrence\", \"text\": \"CLAY, Circuit Judge, concurring in the denial of rehearing en banc. In their latest attempt\\nto inflict death by distorted originalism on the modern administrative state, some of my colleagues\\nwould have this Court directly contravene the Anti-Injunction Act (the “AIA”), which provides\\nthat “no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be\\nmaintained in any court by any person.” 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a). Specifically, my colleagues would\\nallow plaintiffs seeking to preemptively challenge regulatory taxes to evade the AIA simply by\\npurporting to challenge only the regulatory aspect of the regulatory tax. Yet “[t]he Supreme Court\\nhas consistently ruled” that the AIA “cannot be sidestepped by such nifty wordplay.” Fla. Bankers\\nAss’n v. U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury, 799 F.3d 1065, 1070 (D.C. Cir. 2015); see, e.g., Nat’l Fed’n\\nof Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519, 543 (2012); Alexander v. “Americans United” Inc.,\\n416 U.S. 752, 761 (1974); Bob Jones Univ. v. Simon, 416 U.S. 725, 732 (1974); Bailey v. George,\\n259 U.S. 16, 19–20 (1922). To hold otherwise “would reduce the [AIA] to dust in the context of\\nchallenges to regulatory taxes.” Fla. Bankers, 799 F.3d at 1070.\\n\\n Of course, that is precisely the result that my colleagues crave. They chide the IRS for its\\n“regulat[ion] [of] an ever-expanding sphere of everyday life” and decry that it is exercising its\\npowers “in ways the Founders never would have envisioned.” But such complaints were not\\npersuasive when the original panel considered this case, were not persuasive when the full court\\nconsidered the petition for rehearing en banc, and are not persuasive now. “[I]t is no answer to the\\ngrowth of agencies” for federal courts to renounce the rules by which they have long abided,\\nparticularly where those rules have been clearly articulated by both Congress and the Supreme\\nCourt. Kisor v. Wilkie, 139 S. Ct. 2400, 2423 (2019).\\n\\n A suit seeking to preemptively challenge the regulatory aspect of a regulatory tax\\n“necessarily” also seeks to preemptively challenge the tax aspect of a regulatory tax because\\ninvalidating the former would necessarily also invalidate the latter. Bob Jones Univ., 416 U.S. at\\n731; see also NFIB, 567 U.S. at 543 (“The present challenge to the mandate thus seeks to restrain\\nthe penalty’s future collection.” (emphasis added)). Otherwise, a taxpayer could simply\\n\\n No. 18-5019 CIC Services, LLC v. IRS, et al. Page 4\\n\\n\\n“characterize” a challenge to a regulatory tax as a challenge to only the regulatory aspect of the\\ntax and thereby evade the AIA. Fla. Bankers, 799 F.3d at 1071. And “as the Supreme Court has\\nexplained time and again . . . the [AIA] is more than a pleading exercise.” Id.; see also RYO\\nMachine, LLC v. U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, 696 F.3d 467, 471 (6th Cir. 2012) (“Regardless of how\\nthe claim is labeled, the effect of an injunction here is to interfere with the assessment or collection\\nof a tax. The plaintiff is not free to define the relief it seeks in terms permitted by the [AIA] while\\nignoring the ultimate deleterious effect such relief would have on the Government’s taxing\\nability.” (quotation omitted)).\\n\\n Against this wealth of precedent, my colleagues raise no new arguments sounding in either\\nstatutory text or caselaw. As the majority opinion in this case makes clear, Direct Mktg. Ass’n v.\\nBrohl, 135 S. Ct. 1124 (2015), Autocam Corp. v. Sebelius, 730 F.3d 618, 622 (6th Cir. 2013),\\nvacated on other grounds by Autocam Corp. v. Burwell, 573 U.S. 956 (2014), Korte v. Sebelius,\\n735 F.3d 654, 669–70 (7th Cir. 2013), and Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 723 F.3d 1114,\\n1126–27 (10th Cir. 2013), are all largely inapposite. None of those cases involved a regulation\\nenforced by a tax-penalty located in Subchapter 68B of the Internal Revenue Code. Where, as\\nhere, the regulation at issue is enforced by a tax-penalty located in Subchapter 68B of the Internal\\nRevenue Code, that tax-penalty becomes the relevant tax for the AIA analysis, as opposed to any\\nthird-party taxes the collection of which the regulation is designed to facilitate. NFIB, 567 U.S. at\\n544; Fla. Bankers, 799 F.3d at 1068. And Plaintiff’s suit plainly seeks to “restrain[] (indeed\\neliminat[e]) the assessment and collection of that tax.” Fla. Bankers, 799 F.3d at 1068; see also\\nNFIB, 567 U.S. at 544. In contrast, Autocam, Korte, and Hobby Lobby all involved the Affordable\\nCare Act’s contraceptive mandate, which was a separate provision of the U.S. Code structured not\\nas a predicate to the imposition of a tax, but as a mandate enforceable by a variety of different\\nmechanisms.\\n\\n Rather, in an instance of textbook judicial activism, my colleagues instead attempt to raise\\na plethora of policy concerns. Indeed, reading the dissent, one might be left with the mistaken\\nimpression that “policy concerns, rather than traditional tools of statutory construction, are shaping\\nthe judicial interpretation of statutes.” Zuni Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 89 v. Dep’t of Educ., 550 U.S 81,\\n109 (2007) (Scalia, J., dissenting). Not so. As my colleagues well know, having admonished the\\n\\n No. 18-5019 CIC Services, LLC v. IRS, et al. Page 5\\n\\n\\nIRS on the same grounds, “courts are[] [not] free to rewrite clear statutes under the banner of our\\nown policy concerns.” Azar v. Allina Health Servs., 139 S. Ct. 1804, 1815 (2019). Regardless,\\nnone of the policy concerns that the dissent raises are persuasive.\\n\\n For instance, my colleagues evoke the prospect of righteous individuals forced to “bet the\\nfarm” or “risk prison time” in order to challenge regulatory taxes imposed by a purportedly\\nillegitimate administrative state. Yet the Supreme Court has made clear that the AIA creates an\\nexception to the general administrative law principle in favor of pre-enforcement judicial review,\\nand that it applies even in the gravest of circumstances, such as the violation of individuals’\\nconstitutional rights. See, e.g., United States v. Clintwood Elkhorn Min. Co., 553 U.S. 1, 10 (2008)\\n(“[T]he taxpayer must succumb [even] to an unconstitutional tax, and seek recourse only after it\\nhas been unlawfully exacted.”). If and when Congress has a change of heart, it remains free to\\namend the AIA as it sees fit.\\n\\n My colleagues also opine about a supposed “elephant in the room”—the fact that “the IRS\\n(an executive agency) exercises the power to tax and destroy, in ways the Founders never would\\nhave envisioned.” Yet the Founders’ expectations about how Congress would wield the power\\nbestowed on it by the Constitution are entirely irrelevant to the case before this Court. This is a\\ncase about statutory interpretation, not about the constitutionality of the so-called administrative\\nstate, or even the constitutionality of the AIA. My colleagues thus misstep in letting their hostility\\ntoward the IRS, rather than traditional tools of statutory construction, guide their analysis.\\nApparently, it is no cause for doubt or self-reflection by my dissenting colleagues that no one else,\\nincluding the parties litigating this case, can see the elephant.\\n\\n At bottom, my colleagues raise no arguments that justify this Court’s departure from settled\\nSupreme Court precedent regarding the AIA. Accordingly, I respectfully concur in the denial of\\nrehearing en banc.\\n\\n No. 18-5019 CIC Services, LLC v. IRS, et al. Page 6\\n\\n\\n _______________________________________________________________\\n\\n CONCURRENCE IN THE DENIAL OF REHEARING EN BANC\\n _______________________________________________________________\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4434145/\", \"author_raw\": \"CLAY, Circuit Judge, concurring\"}, {\"author\": \"SUTTON, Circuit Judge, concurring\", \"type\": \"concurrence\", \"text\": \"SUTTON, Circuit Judge, concurring in the denial of rehearing en banc. Three cross-\\ncurrents affect the resolution of this en banc petition.\\n\\n One is that the dissenting opinion by Judge Nalbandian seems to be right as an original\\nmatter. I doubt that the words of the Anti-Injunction Act—that “no suit for the purpose of\\nrestraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any\\nperson”—ban all prospective relief whenever the IRS enforces a regulation with a penalty that it\\nchooses to call a “tax.” 26 U.S.C. § 7421. And I especially doubt that conclusion in this setting—\\nwhere the taxpayer’s only remedy is not to “pay first challenge later” but to “report to prison first\\nchallenge later.” As today’s case appears to confirm, the meaning of the Anti-Injunction Act has\\ncrossed the bar from its port of birth. See Lipke v. Lederer, 259 U.S. 557, 562 (1922) (holding that\\nthe Anti-Injunction Act does not apply to a suit to enjoin enforcement of a penalty Congress called\\na “tax”). One explanation for this drift may be the historic linkage between the meaning of the\\nAnti-Injunction Act and the Tax Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1341. See Direct Mktg. Ass’n v.\\nBrohl, 135 S. Ct. 1124, 1129 (2015). Keep in mind that, while the Anti-Injunction Act ensures\\nthat the IRS can perform its revenue-collecting tasks without undue interference by federal\\ntaxpayers, the Tax Injunction Act protects a different sovereign’s interests—“to limit drastically\\nfederal district court jurisdiction to interfere with so important a local concern as the collection of\\ntaxes” by the States. Rosewell v. Lasalle Nat’l Bank, 450 U.S. 503, 522 (1981). To respect the\\nfederal taxpayer’s procedural concerns today thus might slight the State’s sovereign concerns\\ntomorrow, creating the risk that too much haste in stopping one abuse of power might open the\\ndoor to another.\\n\\n A second reality is that this case does not come to us on a fresh slate. Whatever we might\\ndo with the issue as an original matter is not the key question. As second-tier judges in a three-\\ntier court system, our task is to figure out what the Supreme Court’s precedents mean in this setting.\\nThat is not easy because none of the Court’s precedents is precisely on point and because language\\nfrom these one-off decisions leans in different directions. A little caution thus is in order when it\\n\\n No. 18-5019 CIC Services, LLC v. IRS, et al. Page 7\\n\\n\\ncomes to judging the efforts of our colleagues on this court and on the D.C. Circuit to sort this out.\\nSee Fla. Bankers Ass’n v. U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury, 799 F.3d 1065, 1068–70 (D.C. Cir. 2015)\\n(Kavanaugh, J.). Neither of the two court of appeals decisions—neither ours nor the D.C.\\nCircuit’s—purports to answer this question as an original matter. And reading between the lines\\nof Supreme Court decisions is a tricky business—hard enough with a panel of three lower-court\\njudges, utterly daunting with a slate of sixteen lower-court judges.\\n\\n The last consideration is that we are not alone. The key complexity in this case—how to\\ninterpret Supreme Court decisions interpreting the statute—poses fewer difficulties for the\\nSupreme Court than it does for us. In a dispute in which the Court’s decisions plausibly point in\\nopposite directions, it’s worth asking what value we would add to the mix by en-bancing the case\\nin order to create the very thing that generally prompts more review: a circuit split. As is, we have\\nJudge Thapar’s dissental and Judge Nalbandian’s dissent at the panel stage on one side and Judge\\nClay’s opinion for the court on the other. These three opinions together with then-Judge\\nKavanaugh’s opinion say all there is to say about the issue from a lower court judge’s perspective.\\nAll of this leaves the Supreme Court in a well-informed position to resolve the point by action or\\ninaction—either by granting review and reversing or by leaving the circuit court decisions in place.\\n\\n No. 18-5019 CIC Services, LLC v. IRS, et al. Page 8\\n\\n\\n _______________________________________________________________\\n\\n DISSENT FROM THE DENIAL OF REHEARING EN BANC\\n _______________________________________________________________\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4434145/\", \"author_raw\": \"SUTTON, Circuit Judge, concurring\"}, {\"author\": \"THAPAR, Circuit Judge, dissenting\", \"type\": \"dissent\", \"text\": \"THAPAR, Circuit Judge, dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc. In this country,\\npeople should not have to risk prison time in order to challenge the lawfulness of government\\naction. In this circuit, they now do. Because the law does not condone—let alone require—that\\nresult, I respectfully dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc.\\n\\n Although the details at first may seem technical, this is a straightforward case. In 2016,\\nthe IRS issued so-called guidance requiring taxpayers and their advisers to report certain\\ninformation to the agency. Failure to do so can result in significant civil penalties. 26 U.S.C.\\n§§ 6707–6708. And a willful violation can result in criminal penalties, including imprisonment.\\nId. § 7203. Less than a year later, CIC Services sued the IRS, alleging that the agency had issued\\nits guidance unlawfully. The question here is whether the Anti-Injunction Act, which provides\\nthat “no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be\\nmaintained in any court by any person,” applies to that suit. Id. § 7421(a).\\n\\n The Supreme Court, this circuit, and other circuits have all told us that the answer to that\\nquestion is no. Take the Supreme Court. Recently, it interpreted the Tax Injunction Act, which\\ngenerally uses words “in the same way” as the Anti-Injunction Act. Direct Mktg. Ass’n v. Brohl,\\n135 S. Ct. 1124, 1129 (2015). That case had two holdings. First, the Court held that the terms\\n“assessment” and “collection”—used in both Acts—do not refer to reporting requirements.\\nRather, such “information gathering” is distinct from and occurs before these other stages of the\\ntaxation process. Id. at 1129–31. Second, the Court held that the term “restrain”—also used in\\nboth Acts—means to “prohibit” or “stop.” Id. at 1132 (internal quotation marks omitted). It did\\nso because the term “‘restrain’ acts on a carefully selected list of technical terms” (e.g.,\\n“assessment” and “collection”), not “an all-encompassing term, like ‘taxation.’” Id. To adopt a\\nbroader definition, the Court explained, would “defeat the precision of that list, as virtually any\\ncourt action related to any phase of taxation” could “inhibit” tax collection. Id. And the narrower\\ndefinition appropriately reflected the term’s “meaning in equity.” Id. From these twin holdings,\\nthe Court easily concluded that a suit to enjoin a state law that required retailers to report certain\\n\\n No. 18-5019 CIC Services, LLC v. IRS, et al. Page 9\\n\\n\\ninformation to the state revenue service could not “be understood to ‘restrain’ the\\n‘assessment’ . . . or collection’” of a tax. Id. at 1133.\\n\\n That conclusion nearly resolves this case. CIC filed its lawsuit to enjoin IRS “guidance”\\nthat required the company to report certain information to the agency. The company claimed that\\nit would have to devote hundreds of hours of labor and tens of thousands of dollars to comply with\\nthat requirement. And for no good reason, the company said, because the IRS had issued its\\nguidance in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and the Congressional Review Act. See\\n5 U.S.C. §§ 553, 706, 801. Per the Supreme Court’s direction, that suit cannot be understood to\\n“restrain[] the assessment or collection” of a tax just because it might inhibit the agency’s future\\ncollection efforts. 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a); Direct Mktg., 135 S. Ct. at 1133.\\n\\n This case, however, does pose one additional wrinkle. Congress has prescribed civil\\npenalties for failing to comply with certain IRS regulations and has apparently decided that these\\npenalties should count as “taxes” for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act. See 26 U.S.C. § 6671(a);\\nNat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519, 544–45 (2012). But that fact changes little.\\nThe Anti-Injunction Act applies to suits “for the purpose of restraining the assessment or\\ncollection” of a tax. 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a). And here the suit seeks to enjoin the underlying\\nreporting requirement, not the penalties. Nor has the IRS otherwise shown that CIC has the\\n“purpose” of restraining these penalties. The company complains about the costs of complying\\nwith the reporting requirement, not the potential penalties for failing to do so. Indeed, CIC\\ncurrently has no “tax” liability under this regulatory regime and may never incur any such liability.\\nSimply put, this is not a case about taxes. CIC Servs., LLC v. IRS, 925 F.3d 247, 259 (6th Cir.\\n2019) (Nalbandian, J., dissenting).\\n\\n Our circuit has reached the same conclusion in a nearly identical case. Specifically, we\\nheld that the Anti-Injunction Act did not apply to a lawsuit challenging the Affordable Care Act’s\\ncontraceptive mandate, even though employers would have to pay a “tax” if they violated the\\nmandate. See Autocam Corp. v. Sebelius, 730 F.3d 618, 621–22 (6th Cir. 2013), vacated on other\\ngrounds sub nom. Autocam Corp. v. Burwell, 573 U.S. 956 (2014). Our decision reasoned that the\\nsuit was “not intended to ‘restrain[]’ the IRS’s efforts to ‘assess[] or collect[]’ taxes”; rather, it\\nsought only to enjoin the underlying mandate. Id. at 622 (alterations in original). Although the\\n\\n No. 18-5019 CIC Services, LLC v. IRS, et al. Page 10\\n\\n\\nSupreme Court later vacated that decision, it did so on other grounds. So the decision continues\\nto be entitled to (at the very least) persuasive weight. And there was no good reason to disturb it\\nhere. Cf. United States v. Adewani, 467 F.3d 1340, 1342 (D.C. Cir. 2006); Christianson v. Colt\\nIndus. Operating Corp., 870 F.2d 1292, 1298 (7th Cir. 1989).\\n\\n Our circuit was not alone in its conclusion. Two other circuits have reached the same result\\nusing the same reasoning. See Korte v. Sebelius, 735 F.3d 654, 669–70 (7th Cir. 2013); Hobby\\nLobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 723 F.3d 1114, 1126–27 (10th Cir. 2013) (en banc). And another\\napplied the same reasoning to a similar case. See Seven-Sky v. Holder, 661 F.3d 1, 8–10 (D.C. Cir.\\n2011), abrogated on other grounds by NFIB, 567 U.S. 519.\\n\\n Finally, these decisions just make sense. After all, the Supreme Court has long presumed\\nthat parties may challenge agency action before they suffer any harm. See, e.g., U.S. Army Corps\\nof Eng’rs v. Hawkes Co., 136 S. Ct. 1807, 1815–16 (2016); Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S.\\n136, 139–41, 152–53 (1967); United States v. Nourse, 34 U.S. 8, 28–29 (1835) (Marshall, C.J.).\\nTrue, the Anti-Injunction Act creates a narrow exception to that rule. Yet the IRS’s interpretation\\nwould not just broaden that exception but blast it wide open. In recent years, the agency has begun\\nto regulate an ever-expanding sphere of everyday life—from childcare and charity to healthcare\\nand the environment. That might be okay if the IRS followed basic rules of administrative law.\\nBut it doesn’t. See Kristin E. Hickman & Gerald Kerska, Restoring the Lost Anti-Injunction Act,\\n103 Va. L. Rev. 1683, 1685, 1712–20 (2017). So with great power comes little accountability.\\n\\n Even so, one might think, the IRS’s interpretation would still allow people to bring a\\nchallenge after they violate the reporting requirement and pay the penalty. True enough. But only\\nif people are also willing to spend up to a year in prison. See 26 U.S.C. § 7203. In effect, these\\ncriminal sanctions make the reporting requirement in this case (and many others) unreviewable.\\nThe IRS responds that “[it] is not clear” whether the government would criminally prosecute\\nsomeone “who demonstrates a good-faith intent to submit its challenge for judicial resolution.”\\nIRS En Banc Br. at 8. But that has never been a “sufficient answer.” Abbott Labs., 387 U.S. at\\n154 (rejecting the argument that “the threat of criminal sanctions” was “unrealistic”). Courts\\nnormally do not require people “to bet the farm” in order to bring an administrative challenge.\\n\\n No. 18-5019 CIC Services, LLC v. IRS, et al. Page 11\\n\\n\\nFree Enter. Fund v. Pub. Co. Accounting Oversight Bd., 561 U.S. 477, 490 (2010) (internal\\nquotation marks omitted). Yet the IRS seems to think people should bet their liberty.\\n\\n Going forward in this circuit, the IRS will have the power to impose sweeping “guidance”\\nacross areas of public and private life, backed by civil and criminal sanctions, and left unchecked\\nby administrative or judicial process. Surely nobody in 1867 would have understood the Anti-\\nInjunction Act to require such a result. See Pullan v. Kinsinger, 20 F. Cas. 44, 48 (C.C.S.D. Ohio\\n1870) (describing the Act as “wholly unnecessary, enacted only as a politic and kindly publication\\nof an old and familiar [common law] rule”); Erin Morrow Hawley, The Equitable Anti-Injunction\\nAct, 90 Notre Dame L. Rev. 81, 96–97 (2014). Nor should we have allowed it.\\n\\n By this point, one might recognize the “elephant in the room.” Gutierrez-Brizuela v.\\nLynch, 834 F.3d 1142, 1149 (10th Cir. 2016) (Gorsuch, J., concurring). The Founders gave\\nCongress the “Power To lay and collect Taxes.” U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 1. They limited this\\npower to Congress because they understood full well that “the power to tax involves the power to\\ndestroy.” M’Culloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316, 431 (1819) (Marshall, C.J.). But today, the IRS\\n(an executive agency) exercises the power to tax and to destroy, in ways that the Founders never\\nwould have envisioned. E.g., In re United States (NorCal Tea Party Patriots), 817 F.3d 953 (6th\\nCir. 2016). Courts accepted this departure from constitutional principle on the promise that\\nCongress would still constrain agency power through statutes like the Administrative Procedure\\nAct. 5 U.S.C. § 500 et seq. We now see what many feared: that promise is often illusory.\\n\\n The IRS offers some arguments in response. It first contends that several Supreme Court\\ndecisions support its interpretation. Specifically, the agency points to Alexander v. “Americans\\nUnited” Inc., 416 U.S. 752 (1974) and Bob Jones Univ. v. Simon, 416 U.S. 725 (1974). In those\\ncases, the Court held that the Anti-Injunction Act barred challenges to the IRS’s decision to revoke\\nthe tax-exempt status of two nonprofits. The nonprofits each argued that their lawsuits sought\\nonly to maintain their flow of charitable donations, not to restrain a tax. But the Court recognized\\nthat the “primary” or “obvious purpose” of both lawsuits was to restrain the collection of taxes.\\n\\n No. 18-5019 CIC Services, LLC v. IRS, et al. Page 12\\n\\n\\n“Americans United,” 416 U.S. at 760–61; Bob Jones, 416 U.S. at 738.1 Indeed, the plaintiffs in\\nthose cases were “defeated by [their] own pleadings, since the only injuries [they] identified\\ninvolved tax liability.” Seven-Sky, 661 F.3d at 10 (citing “Americans United,” 416 U.S. at 761;\\nBob Jones, 416 U.S. at 738–39). Yet here CIC has a clear interest—separate from any potential\\n“tax” liability—in avoiding the substantial costs of the reporting requirement. The “purpose” of\\nits lawsuit is to obtain relief from costs the company must pay today, not to restrain a penalty it\\nmight have to pay tomorrow. The agency also cites NFIB, 567 U.S. 519. But that decision never\\nreached the question whether the lawsuit had the “purpose of restraining” a tax because the penalty\\nin that case was not a “tax.” See id. at 546.2\\n\\n Lastly, the IRS invokes a policy concern, asserting that any other interpretation would\\nallow parties to circumvent the Anti-Injunction Act through “ingenious” pleading. IRS Br. at 43.\\nBut the agency has offered little basis for that concern. And the Supreme Court’s decisions in\\n“Americans United” and Bob Jones suggest that courts can determine a lawsuit’s purpose without\\nbarring every pre-enforcement challenge involving the IRS (or requiring would-be plaintiffs to file\\ntheir lawsuits from prison). More to the point, the Court has repeatedly told us that we may not\\nrewrite a statute based on policy concerns. See, e.g., Azar v. Allina Health Servs., 139 S. Ct. 1804,\\n1815 (2019). In sum, the Anti-Injunction Act should not apply to this suit.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 1To be sure, the Supreme Court suggested at one point that the Anti-Injunction Act would bar any lawsuit\\nthat would “necessarily preclude” the collection of taxes. Bob Jones, 416 U.S. at 732. But that stray phrase has never\\nsince been invoked by the Court, even in a decision released on the same day by the same Justice about the same issue.\\nSee “Americans United,” 416 U.S. 752. If the test truly were whether a lawsuit would “necessarily preclude” the\\ncollection of taxes, then “Americans United” would have been a much easier case. Instead, the Court spent ten pages\\nanalyzing the facts of the case and the purpose of the lawsuit. See id. The “necessarily preclude” test would also have\\nthe inconvenient feature of rewriting the Anti-Injunction Act to say “effect” rather than “purpose.”\\n\\n 2Of course, thoughtful jurists have read these cases as well as the Anti-Injunction Act differently. See CIC\\nServs., 925 F.3d 247; Fla. Bankers Ass’n v. U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury, 799 F.3d 1065 (D.C. Cir. 2015). But the\\nSupreme Court long ago rejected the suggestion that circuit courts should automatically follow each other’s decisions.\\nInstead, “the primary duty of every court is to dispose of cases according to the law and the facts; in a word, to decide\\nthem right.” Mast, Foos & Co. v. Stover Mfg. Co., 177 U.S. 485, 488 (1900). And in rehearing this case, we could have\\nconsidered other related questions that may bear on its outcome. See Hobby Lobby, 723 F.3d at 1157–59 (Gorsuch,\\nJ., concurring) (reasoning that the Anti-Injunction Act is not jurisdictional); Hawley, supra, at 90–110, 125–32\\n(arguing the same and noting that, if the Act is not jurisdictional, it may permit courts to grant equitable relief in a\\nbroader array of cases than currently recognized).\\n\\n No. 18-5019 CIC Services, LLC v. IRS, et al. Page 13\\n\\n\\n ***\\n\\n The IRS has long “envision[ed] a world in which no challenge to its actions is ever outside\\nthe closed loop of its taxing authority.” Cohen v. United States, 650 F.3d 717, 726 (D.C. Cir.\\n2011) (en banc). With today’s decision, I fear we have made some large strides towards such a\\nworld. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc.\\n\\n ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n __________________________________\\n Deborah S. Hunt, Clerk\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4434145/\", \"author_raw\": \"THAPAR, Circuit Judge, dissenting\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"SUHRHEINRICH"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"CLAY"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"NALBANDIAN"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"SUHRHEINRICH\": \", Circuit\", \"CLAY\": \", Circuit\", \"NALBANDIAN\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":4,"string":"4"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4656892/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":8,"string":"8"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: CIC Services, LLC v. IRS\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-08-28\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: Yes\nHas concurring opinion: Yes\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0219p.06\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\n\n\n\n CIC SERVICES, LLC, ┐\n Plaintiff-Appellant, │\n │\n > No. 18-5019\n v. │\n │\n │\n INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; DEPARTMENT OF │\n TREASURY; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, │\n Defendants-Appellees. │\n ┘\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court\n for the Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville.\n No. 3:17-cv-00110—Travis R. McDonough, District Judge.\n\n Argued: October 19, 2018\n\n Decided and Filed: August 28, 2019\n\n Before: SUHRHEINRICH, CLAY, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.\n\n _________________\n\n COUNSEL\n\nON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC AND REPLY: Adam R. Webber, ELLIOTT,\nFAULKNER & WEBBER, Beavercreek, Ohio, Cameron T. Norris, CONSOVOY MCCARTHY\nPLLC, Arlington, Virginia, for Appellant. ON RESPONSE: Teresa E. McLaughlin, Bethany B.\nHauser, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.\nON BRIEF: John J. Vecchione, CAUSE OF ACTION INSTITUTE, Washington, D.C., Kristin\nE. Hickman, UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA LAW SCHOOL, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for\nAmici Curiae.\n\n The panel issued an order denying the petition for rehearing en banc. CLAY, J. (pp. 3–5),\ndelivered a separate opinion concurring in the denial of rehearing en banc. SUTTON, J.\n(pp. 6–7), delivered a separate opinion concurring in the denial of rehearing en banc. THAPAR,\nJ. (pp. 8–13), delivered a separate opinion dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc, in which\nKETHLEDGE, BUSH, LARSEN, NALBANDIAN, READLER, and MURPHY, JJ., joined.\n\n No. 18-5019 CIC Services, LLC v. IRS, et al. Page 2\n\n\n _________________\n\n ORDER\n _________________\n\n The court received a petition for rehearing en banc. The original panel reviewed the\npetition and concludes that the issues raised in the petition were fully considered upon the original\nsubmission and decision. The petition was then circulated to the full court. Less than a majority\nof the judges voted in favor of rehearing en banc.\n\n Therefore, the petition is denied.\n\n No. 18-5019 CIC Services, LLC v. IRS, et al. Page 3\n\n\n _______________________________________________________________\n\n CONCURRENCE IN THE DENIAL OF REHEARING EN BANC\n _______________________________________________________________\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: CIC Services, LLC v. IRS\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-08-28\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: Yes\\nHas concurring opinion: Yes\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0219p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n CIC SERVICES, LLC, ┐\\n Plaintiff-Appellant, │\\n │\\n > No. 18-5019\\n v. │\\n │\\n │\\n INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; DEPARTMENT OF │\\n TREASURY; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, │\\n Defendants-Appellees. │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville.\\n No. 3:17-cv-00110—Travis R. McDonough, District Judge.\\n\\n Argued: October 19, 2018\\n\\n Decided and Filed: August 28, 2019\\n\\n Before: SUHRHEINRICH, CLAY, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC AND REPLY: Adam R. Webber, ELLIOTT,\\nFAULKNER & WEBBER, Beavercreek, Ohio, Cameron T. Norris, CONSOVOY MCCARTHY\\nPLLC, Arlington, Virginia, for Appellant. ON RESPONSE: Teresa E. McLaughlin, Bethany B.\\nHauser, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.\\nON BRIEF: John J. Vecchione, CAUSE OF ACTION INSTITUTE, Washington, D.C., Kristin\\nE. Hickman, UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA LAW SCHOOL, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for\\nAmici Curiae.\\n\\n The panel issued an order denying the petition for rehearing en banc. CLAY, J. (pp. 3–5),\\ndelivered a separate opinion concurring in the denial of rehearing en banc. SUTTON, J.\\n(pp. 6–7), delivered a separate opinion concurring in the denial of rehearing en banc. THAPAR,\\nJ. (pp. 8–13), delivered a separate opinion dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc, in which\\nKETHLEDGE, BUSH, LARSEN, NALBANDIAN, READLER, and MURPHY, JJ., joined.\\n\\n No. 18-5019 CIC Services, LLC v. IRS, et al. Page 2\\n\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n ORDER\\n _________________\\n\\n The court received a petition for rehearing en banc. The original panel reviewed the\\npetition and concludes that the issues raised in the petition were fully considered upon the original\\nsubmission and decision. The petition was then circulated to the full court. Less than a majority\\nof the judges voted in favor of rehearing en banc.\\n\\n Therefore, the petition is denied.\\n\\n No. 18-5019 CIC Services, LLC v. IRS, et al. Page 3\\n\\n\\n _______________________________________________________________\\n\\n CONCURRENCE IN THE DENIAL OF REHEARING EN BANC\\n _______________________________________________________________\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3761,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4657307,"string":"4,657,307"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Michael Scott v. First S. Nat'l Bank"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-08-29"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-6130"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before: CLAY, LARSEN, and READLER, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"CLAY, Circuit Judge\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0220p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n MICHAEL L. SCOTT; LINDA A. LARKIN, ┐\\n Plaintiffs-Appellants, │\\n │\\n > No. 18-6130\\n v. │\\n │\\n │\\n FIRST SOUTHERN NATIONAL BANK, │\\n Defendant-Appellee. │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Eastern District of Kentucky at Lexington.\\n No. 5:16-cv-00281—Karen K. Caldwell, Chief District Judge.\\n\\n Argued: August 9, 2019\\n\\n Decided and Filed: August 29, 2019\\n\\n Before: CLAY, LARSEN, and READLER, Circuit Judges.\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nARGUED: Richard A. Getty, THE GETTY LAW GROUP, PLLC, Lexington, Kentucky, for\\nAppellants. Robert C. “Coley” Stilz III, KINKEAD & STILZ, PLLC, Lexington, Kentucky, for\\nAppellee. ON BRIEF: Richard A. Getty, Danielle Harlan, THE GETTY LAW GROUP,\\nPLLC, Lexington, Kentucky, for Appellants. Robert C. “Coley” Stilz III, KINKEAD & STILZ,\\nPLLC, Lexington, Kentucky, Stanton L. Cave, LAW OFFICE OF STAN CAVE, Lexington,\\nKentucky, for Appellee.\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n CLAY, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs Michael L. Scott and Linda A. Larkin filed a five count\\nComplaint in state court against Defendant First Southern National Bank (“First Southern”) after\\n\\f No. 18-6130 Scott, et al. v. First S. Nat’l Bank Page 2\\n\\n\\nFirst Southern failed to extend additional loans to finance Plaintiffs’ commercial renovation\\nproject. First Southern removed the action to federal district court, properly invoking federal\\nquestion jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441, for Plaintiffs’ claims under the Fair Credit\\nReporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq., and supplemental jurisdiction over\\nPlaintiffs’ related state common law claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367. After discovery, First\\nSouthern moved for summary judgment on all claims. In response, Plaintiffs filed a motion for\\npartial summary judgment on their claim that First Southern breached its duty of good faith and\\nfair dealing. The district court granted First Southern’s motion for summary judgment, denied\\nPlaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment, and entered judgment in favor of First\\nSouthern. Plaintiffs filed this timely appeal.\\n\\n For the reasons provided below, we AFFIRM the district court.\\n\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n\\n A. Factual History\\n\\n Plaintiffs own two dental practices, several LLC’s that own properties that Plaintiffs use\\nto generate rental income, a sports bar, and an indoor basketball gymnasium that they also rent\\nout as an event center. Around 2009, Scott began “buying property” that he “could rehab”\\nbecause “it was a great time to buy . . . especially in Cincinnati.” (Scott Dep., ECF No. 66-2 at\\nPageID #322.) To further his property-investment efforts, Scott obtained a $300,000 commercial\\nline of credit (“Credit Line”) from First Southern.\\n\\n Scott had previously taken out several loans from First Southern, including a home equity\\nloan, a line of credit, and a construction loan. From his prior dealings with First Southern, Scott\\nknew that First Southern went through a “process” before it “len[t] money or renew[ed] notes to\\napprove people for loans.” (Id. at 316.) Scott knew that this process entailed\\n“collect[ing] . . . financial information about the borrower” through “[p]ersonal financial\\nstatements” and “credit reports” and gathering “information about the collateral that’s going to\\nbe pledged.” (Id. at 317.) And Scott understood that First Southern evaluated this financial\\ninformation before deciding whether to approve a borrower for a loan.\\n\\f No. 18-6130 Scott, et al. v. First S. Nat’l Bank Page 3\\n\\n\\n In June 2013, Scott sought a loan from First Southern to convert a vacant former hotel\\ninto 26 apartment units and two commercial spaces. To support his loan request, Scott provided\\nFirst Southern with a total cost estimate of $941,793.32 for the renovation. Scott submitted the\\ncost estimate to Rocky Mason, the Community President of First Southern’s Lexington branch\\nwho managed Plaintiffs’ accounts at First Southern. Scott and Mason also communicated about\\nthe loan request via text message, discussing, among other things, the terms of the potential loan,\\nthe bank’s appraisal of Scott’s collateral, and the bank’s valuation of the renovation project.\\n\\n After First Southern received the cost estimates for the renovation project from Scott,\\nFirst Southern followed its usual process for reviewing a request for a sizable loan. An analyst\\nfrom First Southern evaluated Plaintiffs’ financial statements, three years of Plaintiffs’ tax\\nreturns, and Plaintiffs’ credit report. The analyst compiled Plaintiffs’ financial information into a\\n“loan presentation” that was submitted to First Southern’s Executive Loan Committee. After\\nreviewing the loan presentation, the Executive Loan Committee approved Plaintiffs’ loan\\nrequest.\\n\\n On July 23, 2013, Plaintiffs and First Southern executed a Commercial Loan Agreement\\nthrough which Frist Southern extended Plaintiffs a commercial loan for the renovation project\\n(“Construction Loan”). The Commercial Loan Agreement provided that the “maximum total\\nprincipal balance” for the Construction Loan “will not exceed $1,013,519.00.” (Loan\\nAgreement, ECF No. 66-11 at PageID #582.) The Commercial Loan Agreement, by its terms,\\nrepresented “the complete and final expression of the understanding between” Plaintiffs and First\\nSouthern, provided that it could “not be amended or modified by oral agreement,” and stated that\\n“[n]o amendment or modification . . . is effective unless made in writing and executed” by\\nPlaintiffs and First Southern. (Id. at PageID #587.)\\n\\n While the Commercial Loan Agreement did not contain any promise that First Southern\\nwould extend additional loans to Plaintiffs, Scott believed that First Southern would loan him\\nany extra funds needed to complete the renovation. According to Scott, he and Mason had\\ndiscussed the possibility of cost overruns before Plaintiffs and First Southern entered into the\\nCommercial Loan Agreement; Mason understood that overruns were likely and told Scott that\\nbecause of Scott’s longstanding relationship with First Southern, Mason “d[id]n’t see [Scott]\\n\\f No. 18-6130 Scott, et al. v. First S. Nat’l Bank Page 4\\n\\n\\nhaving any problems” obtaining additional financing. (Scott Dep., ECF No. 66-2 at PageID\\n#336.) Scott asserts that Mason “represented [that] the project was going to be finished.” (Id. at\\nPageID #345.) Scott states that he relied on Mason’s assurances that Scott could obtain\\nadditional funding in deciding to finance the project through First Southern rather than through a\\ndifferent lending institution.\\n\\n In early November 2013, Scott informed Mason via text message that Plaintiffs would\\nlikely need an additional $400,000 to complete the renovation. Scott asked Mason to “let me\\nknow as soon as possible” if First Southern “cannot do” the additional loan because Scott could\\n“get it from PNC” instead. (Text Messages, ECF No. 66-7 at PageID #533.) In response, Mason\\nasked Scott to provide a “breakdown” for the additional $400,000 Scott might request. (Id.)\\nScott stated that he would have the architect for the renovation project explain to Mason the\\nreasons for requesting the additional funds.\\n\\n On November 9, 2013 and November 27, 2013, the architect provided Mason with\\nrevised bids for certain individual components of the renovation. But the architect did not\\nprovide an updated estimate of the total cost to complete the project. On January 10, 2014,\\nMason emailed Scott, “[i]f you will need more funds, we will need to gather an estimate of what\\nit will cost to complete soon.” (ECF No. 77-14 at PageID #1195.) On February 21, 2014, the\\narchitect provided First Southern with an updated cost estimate for the entire renovation project.\\nThe revised total estimated cost was $1,654,648.65, i.e., approximately $712,000 above the total\\ncost for the project that Plaintiffs had represented in their loan application and approximately\\n$640,000 more than First Southern had loaned Plaintiffs.\\n\\n The following week, Mason and Scott met in Cincinnati. Mason states that Scott\\nrequested that First Southern loan Plaintiffs an additional $650,000; that Mason requested that\\nScott present additional collateral to support his new loan request; and that Scott refused to offer\\nadditional collateral. Scott states that Mason never asked that Scott provide additional collateral.\\nScott also asserts that additional collateral was not needed because he was already\\n“overcollateralized” on his loans with First Southern. (Scott Dep, ECF No. 66-2 at PageID\\n#358.) A few days after their meeting, Scott texted Mason to “try [his] best to get the whole\\namount” of the additional funds that Scott had requested. (ECF No. 66-7 at PageID #539.)\\n\\f No. 18-6130 Scott, et al. v. First S. Nat’l Bank Page 5\\n\\n\\n Mason initiated the process of reviewing Scott’s new loan request. This process involved\\nobtaining itemized cost breakdowns from the architect, assembling Plaintiffs’ updated financial\\ninformation, running new credit checks on Plaintiffs, and ultimately seeking approval of a new\\nloan from First Southern’s Executive Loan Committee. When compiling this updated\\ninformation, an analyst from First Southern discovered that Plaintiffs had incurred additional\\ndebt in the period since First Southern had approved the Construction Loan and that Plaintiffs\\nhad failed to disclose this new debt to Frist Southern. After conducting an investigation, First\\nSouthern learned that Plaintiffs had obtained approximately $600,000 in loans from United Bank\\nto purchase and renovate a gymnasium.\\n\\n After Mason learned about Plaintiffs’ additional debt burden, Mason spoke with members\\nof the Executive Loan Committee. According to John Ball, one of the members of the Executive\\nLoan Committee, the Committee determined that the loans Scott had received from United Bank\\n“increase[d] leverage and [Scott’s] debt position.” (Ball Dep., ECF No. 66-8 at PageID #562.)\\nThe Executive Loan Committee also believed that the renovation project had a “tremendous\\namount of [cost] overrun.” (Id. at PageID #562.) For these reasons, the Executive Loan\\nCommittee “didn’t feel like it was a safe and sound loan” and denied Scott’s request for\\nadditional financing. (Id.) On March 31, 2014, Mason called Scott and informed him that First\\nSouthern had denied Scott’s additional loan request.1\\n\\n Plaintiffs’ Credit Line with First Southern was scheduled to mature on June 24, 2014.\\nOn June 17, 2014, First Southern notified Plaintiffs that because Plaintiffs’ request to renew the\\nCredit Line was still pending, First Southern would not require Plaintiffs to repay the balance of\\nthe Credit Line when it became due; instead, until First Southern rendered an ultimate\\ndetermination about whether to renew the Credit Line, First Southern would only require that\\nPlaintiffs continue to make interest payments.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 1Later that day, Scott texted Mason, “[n]o hard feelings on the loan. Business is business. I like u as a\\nperson and we both know that is all that matters in life. Your daughter is more than welcome to come to the office\\nanytime. Good people know good people. U and Shelia r good people. Thanks bro.” (ECF No. 66-7 at PageID\\n#540.)\\n\\f No. 18-6130 Scott, et al. v. First S. Nat’l Bank Page 6\\n\\n\\n Unlike in previous years, First Southern failed to extend the Credit Line’s maturity date\\nduring this review period. Because First Southern’s computer system still listed the maturity\\ndate for the Credit Line as June 24, 2014, the computer system generated automated delinquency\\nreports that it transmitted to the credit bureaus in July and August 2014, damaging Plaintiffs’\\ncredit score. First Southern admits that its computer system sent delinquency notices to the\\ncredit bureaus but asserts that these notices were proper because Plaintiffs were in fact\\ndelinquent; Plaintiffs had failed to pay off the loan balance by the maturity date or make the\\nrequired interest payments in July and August 2014.\\n\\n After First Southern denied his loan request, Scott applied for financing from United\\nBank. United Bank loaned Scott $2,040,000. Using the financing he had received from United\\nBank, Scott completely payed off the Construction Loan and Credit Line with First Southern in\\nearly September 2014. Scott also used the loan from United Bank to complete the renovation\\nproject.\\n\\n Even after Scott paid off his debts with First Southern, First Southern’s automated\\ncomputer system continued to report Scott’s entire prior payment history, including the fact that\\nhe had previously been delinquent on his loans. In early October 2014, Scott discovered that\\nFirst Southern had reported damaging information to the credit bureaus after Clarion Financial,\\nwhich regularly provided Plaintiffs credit to purchase dental supplies, denied Plaintiffs’ latest\\ncredit request because Plaintiffs’ credit report showed that Plaintiffs had previously been\\ndelinquent on their loans with First Southern. After Scott contacted Mason, Mason checked the\\nstatus of Scott’s loans and reported to Scott that First Southern’s system indicated that Scott was\\n“current.” (ECF No. 66-7 at PageID #548.) Mason texted Scott that “we will work to straighten\\n[the situation] out immediately.” (Id.) Scott asserts that he did not contact the credit bureaus to\\ncomplain about the reporting error because Mason had assured him that First Southern would\\ntake care of the issue.\\n\\n In October 2014, First Southern submitted amendments to the national credit reporting\\nbureaus informing them that Plaintiffs had paid off their loans with First Southern and were no\\nlonger delinquent. Mason’s assistant, Shelia Myers, emailed Scott and informed him that\\n“Equifax acknowledged receipt of our requested change” to Plaintiffs’ payment history.\\n\\f No. 18-6130 Scott, et al. v. First S. Nat’l Bank Page 7\\n\\n\\n(Myers Email, ECF No. 77-32 at PageID #1242.) Myers also stated that she had recently spoken\\nwith First Southern’s loan administrator and that he believed that Equifax’s having confirmed\\nreceipt of the amendment “should suffice in knowing the error had been corrected” and that Scott\\nshould “NOT . . . pull a credit report just to confirm the correction” because “each time a report\\nis pulled, the credit score lowers a bit.” (Id.)\\n\\n In March 2015, Plaintiffs’ lawyer sent First Southern a letter complaining about First\\nSouthern’s “erroneous reporting” to the credit bureaus and the financial and reputational damage\\nit caused Plaintiffs. The letter also alleged that First Southern deliberately provided the credit\\nbureaus with false and damaging information about Plaintiffs’ payment history in retaliation for\\nPlaintiffs financing the basketball gymnasium project through United Bank. In June 2015,\\nPlaintiffs’ lawyer sent First Southern another letter that alleged continued harms to Plaintiffs\\nbecause of First Southern’s erroneous reporting. Both letters stated that Plaintiffs were suffering\\nharms because of First Southern’s past erroneous reporting. Neither letter alleged that First\\nSouthern continued to provide inaccurate information to the credit bureaus.\\n\\n Despite First Southern’s representation in October 2014 that the reporting issue had been\\nremedied, the credit bureaus continued to report the delinquency on Plaintiffs’ credit report.\\nIn fact, First Southern had reported to TransUnion that Plaintiffs were delinquent in September,\\nOctober, and November of 2014, even though Plaintiffs had paid off the entire balance of their\\nloans in early September. On August 20, 2015, Plaintiffs’ attorney sent First Southern a letter\\nstating that Plaintiffs had received a credit report earlier that week that continued to show\\ndelinquencies from September, October, and November of 2014 based on Plaintiffs’ previous\\naccounts with First Southern. On September 11, 2015, First Southern submitted a second\\namendment to the national credit bureaus to correct the erroneous information that First Southern\\nhad previously provided stating that Plaintiffs were delinquent. First Southern’s second\\namendment notice remedied the erroneous delinquency reports; during his deposition, Scott\\nstated that any credit issue he had previously experienced because of First Southern’s inaccurate\\nreporting had been “resolved.” (Scott Dep., ECF No. 66-2 at PageID #388.)\\n\\f No. 18-6130 Scott, et al. v. First S. Nat’l Bank Page 8\\n\\n\\n B. Procedural History\\n\\n Plaintiffs filed a five-count Complaint, asserting that First Southern: violated the FCRA\\nby willfully and/or negligently failing to fully and timely investigate Plaintiffs’ complaints that\\nFirst Southern had inaccurately reported Plaintiffs’ payment history to the credit bureaus (Counts\\nI and II); beached its duty of good faith and fair dealing and tortiously interfered with Plaintiffs’\\nbusiness relationships by deliberately reporting false information to the credit bureaus in\\nretaliation for Plaintiffs’ financing the gymnasium project through United Bank (Counts III and\\nV); and made fraudulent misrepresentations that First Southern would loan Plaintiffs additional\\nfunds as necessary to complete the renovation (Count IV). First Southern moved for summary\\njudgment on all of Plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs filed a cross-motion for partial summary\\njudgment on their claim that First Southern breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing. The\\ndistrict court granted First Southern’s motion for summary judgment, denied Plaintiffs’ cross-\\nmotion for partial summary judgment, and entered judgment for First Southern. This timely\\nappeal followed.\\n\\n II. STANDARD OF REVIEW\\n\\n “[T]his Court reviews a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo.”\\nRd. Sprinkler Fitters Local Union No. 669, U.A., AFL-CIO v. Dorn Sprinkler Co., 669 F.3d 790,\\n793 (6th Cir. 2012) (citing Trs. of Resilient Floor Decorators Ins. Fund v. A & M Installations,\\nInc., 395 F.3d 244, 247–48 (6th Cir. 2005)).\\n\\n Summary judgment is proper “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to\\nany material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n56(a). “A dispute about a material fact is genuine ‘if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury\\ncould return a verdict for the non-moving party.’” Smith v. Perkins Bd. of Educ., 708 F.3d 821,\\n825 (6th Cir. 2013) (quoting Ford v. Gen. Motors Corp., 305 F.3d 545, 551 (6th Cir. 2002)).\\nWhen evaluating a motion for summary judgment, the court must “view[] [the evidence] in the\\nlight most favorable to the party opposing the motion.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v.\\nZenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (internal quotation marks omitted). Further, “all\\nreasonable inferences must be made in favor of the non-moving party.” Moran v. Al Basit LLC,\\n\\f No. 18-6130 Scott, et al. v. First S. Nat’l Bank Page 9\\n\\n\\n788 F.3d 201, 204 (6th Cir. 2015) (citing Little Caesar Enters., Inc. v. OPPCO, LLC, 219 F.3d\\n547, 551 (6th Cir. 2000)). The moving party bears the burden of showing that no genuine issues\\nof material fact exist. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324–25 (1986).\\n\\n III. DISCUSSION\\n\\n A. FCRA Claims\\n\\n Plaintiffs argue that the district court improperly granted First Southern summary\\njudgment on Plaintiffs’ FCRA claims. Plaintiffs concede that they “did not notify the credit\\nbureaus of the false reports submitted to them by [First Southern].” (Pls.’ Br. at 32.) But\\nPlaintiffs maintain that they would have notified the credit bureaus but-for Mason’s\\nrepresentation that First Southern would “take care” of the inaccurate reporting of Plaintiffs’\\npayment history and Myers’ recommendation that Plaintiffs not pull a credit report to confirm\\nthat the reporting error had been remedied. (Id. at 32–33.) Plaintiffs assert that the district court\\nviolated principles of justice and contravened the consumer-protection purposes of the FCRA by\\ngranting summary judgment to First Southern on Plaintiffs’ FCRA claims. In response, First\\nSouthern argues that Plaintiffs failed to trigger First Southern’s obligations under the FCRA\\nbecause Plaintiffs never filed a dispute with a consumer reporting agency.\\n\\n As explained below, the district court properly granted First Southern’s motion for\\nsummary judgment on Plaintiffs’ FCRA claims. Plaintiffs never notified a consumer reporting\\nagency about their dispute, a prerequisite for prevailing on their FCRA claims.\\n\\n 1. Relevant Legal Principles\\n\\n “Under the FCRA, those who furnish information to consumer reporting agencies have\\ntwo obligations: (1) to provide accurate information; and (2) to undertake an investigation upon\\nreceipt of a notice of dispute regarding credit information that is furnished.” Downs v. Clayton\\nHomes, Inc., 88 F. App’x 851, 853 (6th Cir. 2004); see 15 U.S.C. § 1681s–2. The FCRA\\n“creates a private right of action” for consumers to enforce the requirement under § 1681s–2(b)\\nthat furnishers of information investigate upon receiving notice of a dispute, but not the\\nrequirement under § 1681s–2(a) that furnishers of information initially provide accurate\\n\\f No. 18-6130 Scott, et al. v. First S. Nat’l Bank Page 10\\n\\n\\ninformation to consumer reporting agencies. Boggio v. USAA Fed. Sav. Bank, 696 F.3d 611, 615\\n(6th Cir. 2012).\\n\\n This Court has repeatedly held that consumers must file a dispute with a consumer\\nreporting agency to trigger the furnisher’s duty to investigate under § 1681s–2(b). See, e.g.,\\nMerritt v. Experian, 560 F. App’x 525, 528–29 (6th Cir. 2014) (“‘Furnishers’ of information to\\nconsumer reporting agencies do have certain responsibilities to investigate [under the FCRA]—\\nbut only after receiving a request from a consumer reporting agency to respond to a dispute.”)\\n(emphasis added); Boggio, 696 F.3d at 615–16 (holding that “consumers may step in to enforce\\ntheir rights only after a furnisher has received proper notice of a dispute from a [credit reporting\\nagency]”) (emphasis added); Brown v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 507 F. App’x 543, 547 (6th Cir.\\n2012) (“A private cause of action against a furnisher of information does not arise until a\\nconsumer reporting agency provides proper notice of a dispute.”); see also Downs, 88 F. App’x\\nat 853–54 (explaining that to implicate § 1681s–2(b)’s duty that a furnisher of information\\nconduct an investigation “the plaintiff must show that the furnisher received notice from a\\nconsumer reporting agency.”).\\n\\n A consumer’s complaining directly to a furnisher of information about a purported error\\nin the information the furnisher supplied to a consumer reporting agency does not trigger the\\nfurnisher’s duty to investigate under the FCRA. See, e.g., Brown, 507 F. App’x at 547 (“Directly\\ncontacting the furnisher of credit information does not actuate the furnisher’s obligation to\\ninvestigate a complaint.”) (citing Nelson v. Chase Manhattan Mortg. Corp., 282 F.3d 1057, 1060\\n(9th Cir. 2002)); Downs, 88 F. App’x at 853–54 (explaining that “the plaintiff must show that the\\nfurnisher received notice from a consumer reporting agency, not the plaintiff, that the credit\\ninformation is disputed”).\\n\\n 2. Application to the Matter at Hand\\n\\n The district court correctly granted summary judgment to First Southern on Plaintiffs’\\nFCRA claims. Because Plaintiffs never filed a dispute with a consumer reporting agency, First\\nSouthern’s duty to investigate under § 1681s–2(b) was never activated. See, e.g., Merritt, 560 F.\\nApp’x at 528–29; Boggio, 696 F.3d at 615–16; Brown, 507 F. App’x at 547; Downs, 88 F. App’x\\n\\f No. 18-6130 Scott, et al. v. First S. Nat’l Bank Page 11\\n\\n\\nat 853–54. Plaintiffs’ notifying First Southern directly about the errors in the information that\\nFirst Southern had furnished to the consumer reporting agencies failed to trigger First Southern’s\\nduty to investigate. See, e.g., Brown, 507 F. App’x at 547 (citing Nelson, 282 F.3d at 1060);\\nDowns, 88 F. App’x at 853–54. Therefore, the district court properly granted summary judgment\\nin favor of First Southern on Plaintiffs’ FCRA claims.\\n\\n Plaintiffs do not assert any legal arguments for why the district court erred by dismissing\\ntheir FCRA claims. Rather, Plaintiffs rely exclusively on a policy argument. Plaintiffs contend\\nthat by dismissing their FCRA claims despite Mason’s representation that First Southern would\\nremedy the problem with Plaintiffs’ payment history and Myers’ admonition that Plaintiffs’ not\\ngenerate a credit report to confirm that the problem had been remedied, the district court allowed\\nFirst Southern to “have its cake and eat it too,” in contravention of the pro-consumer purposes of\\nthe FCRA. (Pls.’ Br. at 33.) Plaintiffs fail to appreciate that the FCRA protects both consumers\\nand furnishers. For instance, this Court has explained that while the FCRA “provides consumers\\nwith a private remedy against negligent or willful misconduct by a furnisher . . . it\\nsimultaneously protects furnishers from answering frivolous consumer disputes.” Boggio,\\n696 F.3d at 616; see also Nelson, 282 F.3d at 1060 (describing the FCRA’s reporting\\nrequirement as “a filtering mechanism” that protects furnishers of information from frivolous\\nconsumer complaints). One way that the FCRA protects furnishers is by requiring that a\\nconsumer file a dispute with a consumer reporting agency, and that the consumer reporting\\nagency screen the complaint and provide notice of the dispute to a furnisher if warranted, before\\nthe consumer may assert a private right of action against the furnisher. See Boggio, 696 F.3d at\\n614–16. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ argument is unpersuasive.2\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 2Plaintiffs’ most promising avenue to attempt to avoid application of the FCRA’s notice requirement may\\nhave been through the doctrine of equitable estoppel. This Circuit has held that equitable estoppel can bar a\\ndefendant from raising an affirmative defense, see E.E.O.C. v. Kentucky State Police Dep’t, 80 F.3d 1086, 1095 (6th\\nCir. 1996), and, in some instances, from contesting an element of a plaintiff’s claim, see Thomas v. Miller, 489 F.3d\\n293, 302 (6th Cir. 2007). This Circuit has never decided whether equitable estoppel could prevent a defendant from\\nasserting that a plaintiff failed to satisfy the FCRA’s notice requirement.\\n Because Plaintiffs never raised an equitable estoppel argument, we do not decide at present whether, in\\nappropriate circumstances and if properly raised, a furnisher of consumer credit information could be equitably\\nestopped from arguing that the plaintiff failed to file a dispute with a consumer reporting agency.\\n\\f No. 18-6130 Scott, et al. v. First S. Nat’l Bank Page 12\\n\\n\\n 3. Summary\\n\\n We find that the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of First\\nSouthern on Plaintiffs’ FCRA claims.\\n\\n B. Claims for Breach of the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing and Tortious\\n Interference with Contractual Relationships\\n\\n Plaintiffs assert that the district court erroneously held that the FCRA preempts state\\ncommon law claims. Plaintiffs further assert that the district court improperly dismissed\\nPlaintiffs’ claims for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing and tortious interference\\nwith contractual relationships because First Southern deliberately harmed Plaintiffs’ credit score\\nby not extending the maturity date on the LOC and by allowing its computer system to send false\\ndelinquency notices to the credit bureaus. In response, First Southern argues that the district\\ncourt correctly held that the FCRA preempts state common law claims that concern a furnisher’s\\ntransmission of information to consumer reporting agencies. First Southern asserts that because\\nPlaintiffs’ claims arise from First Southern’s reporting obligations, the district court properly\\ndismissed Plaintiffs’ claims as preempted by the FCRA.\\n\\n As explained below, the district court correctly concluded that the FCRA preempts state\\ncommon law claims involving a furnisher’s reporting of information to consumer reporting\\nagencies. Further, the district court correctly found that the FCRA preempts Plaintiffs’ claims of\\nbreach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing and tortious interference with contractual\\nrelationships because these claims relate to First Southern’s reporting obligations.\\n\\n 1. Relevant Legal Principles\\n\\n The FCRA provides that “[n]o requirement or prohibition may be imposed under the laws\\nof any State . . . with respect to any subject matter regulated under . . . section 1681s-2 of this\\ntitle, relating to the responsibilities of persons who furnish information to consumer reporting\\nagencies[.]” 15 U.S.C. § 1681t(b)(1)(F). This Court has held that the FCRA preempts state\\ncommon law claims. Ellen Sparks v. Countrywide Homes Loans, Inc., et al., No. 15-6330, slip\\nop. at 3 (6th Cir. Sep. 2, 2016) (per curiam) (holding that the FCRA preempted the plaintiff’s\\ncommon law negligence claim arising from the defendants’ furnishing of information to credit\\n\\f No. 18-6130 Scott, et al. v. First S. Nat’l Bank Page 13\\n\\n\\nreporting agencies); see also Lloyd v. Midland Funding, LLC, 639 F. App’x 301, 307 (6th Cir.\\n2016) (explaining that the FCRA would preempt plaintiffs’ common law claims if said claims\\n“rel[ied] on the proposition that [the defendant] was a furnisher of information” under the\\nFCRA). The other Courts of Appeals that have addressed whether the FCRA preempts state\\ncommon law claims have also answered the question in the affirmative. See, e.g., Macpherson v.\\nJPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 665 F.3d 45, 47–48 (2d Cir. 2011); Purcell v. Bank of Am.,\\n659 F.3d 622, 625–26 (7th Cir. 2011).\\n\\n 2. Application to the Matter at Hand\\n\\n The district court correctly held that the FCRA preempts Plaintiffs’ common law claims\\nof breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing and tortious interference with contractual\\nrelationships. Plaintiffs’ common law claims arise from First Southern’s reporting incorrect\\ninformation to the credit bureaus. Because these common law claims concern the same “subject\\nmatter regulated under . . . section 1681s-2 of [the FCRA],” see § 1681t(b)(1)(F), they are\\npreempted by the FCRA. See Sparks, No. 15-6330, slip op. at 3; Macpherson, 665 F.3d at 47–\\n48; Purcell, 659 F.3d at 625–26; see also Lloyd, 639 F. App’x at 307. The fact that Plaintiffs’\\nclaims arise under state common law, rather than state statutory law, does not save them from\\npreemption.\\n\\n Plaintiffs rely on a district court case from the Western District of Kentucky to argue that\\nthe FCRA preempts only state statutory claims. See Miller v. Wells Fargo & Co., No. 3:05-CV-\\n42-S, 2008 WL 793676, at *8 (W.D. Ky. Mar. 24, 2008). The district court in Miller perceived a\\n“tension” between § 1681t(b)(1)(F) and § 1681h(e), the FCRA’s two preemption provisions,\\nbecause § 1681h(e) “preempts state law claims for defamation, invasion of privacy, and\\nnegligence, to the extent that the plaintiff cannot prove the defendant acted with malice or willful\\nintent to injure” while § 1681t(b)(1)(F), enacted twenty-six years later, “prohibits all state claims\\nagainst furnishers.” Id. at *7 (emphasis added). The Miller court believed that reconciling this\\ntension required adopting what some district courts have referred to as the “statutory approach,”\\nthat is, holding that the FCRA preempts state statutory claims but not state common law claims.\\nId. a *10.\\n\\f No. 18-6130 Scott, et al. v. First S. Nat’l Bank Page 14\\n\\n\\n While a handful of district courts have followed the “statutory approach,” the two Courts\\nof Appeals that have addressed the issue both explicitly rejected the “statutory approach” and\\nheld that the FCRA preempts state common law claims. In Purcell, 659 F.3d 622, the Seventh\\nCircuit explained why § 1681t(b)(1)(F) and § 1681h(e) are not in conflict,\\n\\n Unlike these judges, we do not perceive any inconsistency between the two\\n statutes. Section 1681h(e) preempts some state claims that could arise out of\\n reports to credit agencies; § 1681t(b)(1)(F) preempts more of these claims.\\n Section 1681h(e) does not create a right to recover for wilfully false reports; it just\\n says that a particular paragraph does not preempt claims of that stripe. Section\\n 1681h(e) was enacted in 1970. Twenty-six years later, in 1996, Congress added\\n § 1681t(b)(1)(F) to the United States Code. The same legislation also added\\n § 1681s–2. The extra federal remedy in § 1681s–2 was accompanied by extra\\n preemption in § 1681t(b)(1)(F), in order to implement the new plan under which\\n reporting to credit agencies would be supervised by state and federal\\n administrative agencies rather than judges. Reading the earlier statute,\\n § 1681h(e), to defeat the later-enacted system in § 1681s–2 and § 1681t(b)(1)(F),\\n would contradict fundamental norms of statutory interpretation.\\n Our point is not that § 1681t(b)(1)(F) repeals § 1681h(e) by implication. It is that\\n the statutes are compatible: the first-enacted statute preempts some state\\n regulation of reports to credit agencies, and the second-enacted statute preempts\\n more. There is no more conflict between these laws than there would be between\\n a 1970 statute setting a speed limit of 60 for all roads in national parks and a 1996\\n statute setting a speed limit of 55. It is easy to comply with both: don’t drive\\n more than 55 miles per hour. Just as the later statute lowers the speed limit\\n without repealing the first (which means that, if the second statute should be\\n repealed, the speed limit would rise to 60 rather than vanishing), so\\n § 1681t(b)(1)(F) reduces the scope of state regulation without repealing any other\\n law. This understanding does not vitiate the final words of § 1681h(e), because\\n there are exceptions to § 1681t(b)(1)(F). When it drops out, § 1681h(e) remains.\\n But, even if our understanding creates some surplusage, courts must do what is\\n essential if the more recent enactment is to operate as designed.\\n\\nPurcell, 659 F.3d at 625. In a decision issued shortly after Purcell, the Second Circuit followed\\nthe Seventh Circuit’s conclusion that “§ 1681h(e) is compatible with § 1681t(b)(1)(F)” and held\\nthat state common law claims “are preempted by the plain language of § 1681t(b)(1)(F).”\\nMacpherson, 665 F.3d at 48 (explaining that “the operative language in § 1681h(e) provides only\\nthat the provision does not preempt a certain narrow class of state law claims; it does not prevent\\nthe later-enacted § 1681t(b)(1)(F) from accomplishing a more broadly-sweeping preemption.”)\\n\\f No. 18-6130 Scott, et al. v. First S. Nat’l Bank Page 15\\n\\n\\n We follow the prior decisions from this Circuit and the other Courts of Appeals that have\\ndecided the issue and hold that the FCRA preempts both state statutory and state common law\\nclaims. As the Second Circuit held in Macpherson, the plain language of § 1681t(b)(1)(F)\\npreempts all state “laws” without distinguishing between state statutory law and state common\\nlaw. See Bates v. Dura Auto. Sys., Inc., 625 F.3d 283, 285 (6th Cir. 2010) (“When we can\\ndiscern an unambiguous and plain meaning from the language of a statute, our task is at an\\nend.”) (quoting Bartlik v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 62 F.3d 163, 166 (6th Cir. 1995) (internal\\nquotation marks omitted)). Based on its plain language, § 1681t(b)(1)(F) preempts state\\ncommon law claims.3\\n\\n Like the Seventh Circuit in Purcell and the Second Circuit in Macpherson, we conclude\\nthat the FCRA’s preemption provisions are not in conflict. Congress implemented § 1681h(e) as\\npart of the first iteration of the FCRA. When Congress amended the FCRA in 1996, Congress\\ndecided to impose additional duties on furnishers (as codified in § 1681s–2) and, as part of the\\nmodified statutory scheme, also decided to preempt additional state law claims (through\\n§ 1681t(b)(1)(F)). There is nothing remarkable about Congress changing the scope of federal\\npreemption of state law when it refines a previously-enacted statutory scheme. See, e.g.,\\nCipollone v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 505 U.S. 504, 520 (1992) (describing the preemption provision in\\nthe Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act of 1969 (“PHCSA”) as “much broader” than the\\npreemption provision in the 1965 version of the PHCSA). Further, as the Seventh Circuit\\nexplained in Purcell, “courts do not read old statutes to defeat the operation of newer ones.”\\nPurcell, 659 F.3d at 626. But accepting Plaintiffs’ argument that the FCRA’s original\\npreemption provision, § 1681h(e), preserved state law claims governed by the plain language of\\nthe later-enacted preemption provision, § 1681t(b)(1)(F), “would defeat the 1996 decision [by\\nCongress] that administrative action rather than litigation is the right way to deal with false\\nreports to credit agencies.” Id.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 3Plaintiffsdo not develop a textual argument that the word “laws” in § 1681t(b)(1)(F) refers only to state\\nstatutory laws as opposed to state common law. But the Seventh Circuit persuasively rejected this argument in\\nPurcell, holding that the word “laws” in § 1681t(b)(1)(F) applies to “all sources of legal rules” including “judicial\\ndecisions.” 659 F.3d at 624 (citing Premium Mortg. Corp. v. Equifax, Inc., 583 F.3d 103, 106–07 (2d Cir. 2009)).\\n\\f No. 18-6130 Scott, et al. v. First S. Nat’l Bank Page 16\\n\\n\\n The Supreme Court’s decision in Cipollone further diminishes Plaintiffs’ argument that\\nthis Court should adopt the “statutory approach” to the scope of preemption under the FCRA. In\\nCipollone, the Supreme Court held that by precluding “requirement[s] or\\nprohibition[s] . . . imposed under State law,” the PHCSA preempted state common law actions.\\n505 U.S. at 522–24. The relevant language in § 1681t(b)(1)(F) is nearly analogous to the\\nlanguage from the PHCSA at issue in Cipollone. And, like the PHCSA’s preemption provision,\\n§ 1681t(b)(1)(F) preempts state common law claims.\\n\\n 3. Summary\\n\\n The FCRA preempts state common law causes of action concerning a furnisher’s\\nreporting of consumer credit information to consumer reporting agencies. Plaintiffs’ claims for\\nbreach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing and tortious interference with contractual\\nrelationships concern First Southern’s reporting of Plaintiffs’ credit information to consumer\\nreporting agencies. Therefore, the district court correctly concluded that the FCRA preempts\\nPlaintiffs’ claims for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing and tortious interference\\nwith contractual relationships.\\n\\n C. Fraudulent Misrepresentation Claim\\n\\n As an initial matter, we note that the FCRA does not preempt Plaintiffs’ fraudulent\\nmisrepresentation claim. Plaintiffs assert that First Southern fraudulently represented to\\nPlaintiffs that First Southern would loan additional funds to Plaintiffs as necessary to complete\\nthe renovation. Because Plaintiffs’ fraudulent misrepresentation claim does not arise from First\\nSouthern’s reporting obligations as a furnisher of consumer credit information, the FCRA does\\nnot preempt this claim. See § 1681t(b)(1)(F).\\n\\n As explained below, Plaintiffs forfeited this issue on appeal because they failed to discuss\\nthe district court’s reasoning for granting First Southern’s motion for summary judgment on their\\nfraudulent misrepresentation claim.\\n\\f No. 18-6130 Scott, et al. v. First S. Nat’l Bank Page 17\\n\\n\\n 1. Relevant Legal Principles\\n\\n In this Circuit, an appellant forfeits an argument that he fails to raise in his opening brief.\\nSee, e.g., In re Isaacs, 895 F.3d 904, 917 (6th Cir. 2018) (citing Marks v. Newcourt Credit\\nGroup, Inc., 342 F.3d 444, 462 (6th Cir. 2003)). Further, “where a plaintiff fails to address the\\ndistrict court’s reasoning in disposing of a claim on summary judgment or motion to dismiss, we\\nhave deemed the claim forfeited.” Rees v. W.M. Barr & Co., Inc., 736 F. App’x 119, 124–25\\n(6th Cir. 2018) (collecting cases); see also Grosswiler v. Freudenberg-Nok Sealing Techs.,\\n642 F. App’x 596, 599 (6th Cir. 2016) (holding that plaintiffs abandoned their claim on appeal\\nbecause they did not “challenge or even mention” one of the district court’s bases for granting\\nsummary judgment).\\n\\n 2. Application to the Matter at Hand\\n\\n Plaintiffs have forfeited their appeal of the district court’s dismissal of their fraudulent\\nmisrepresentation claim. The district court held that Plaintiffs’ fraudulent misrepresentation\\nclaim was barred by Kentucky’s statute of frauds, K.R.S. § 371.010. Because the district court\\ndismissed the claim under Kentucky’s statute of frauds, it did not reach the merits of Plaintiffs’\\nfraudulent misrepresentation claim. However, in their briefing before this Court, Plaintiffs do\\nnot address the district court’s reasoning. Instead of arguing that the district court erred by\\nfinding that Kentucky’s statue of frauds barred their fraudulent misrepresentation claim,\\nPlaintiffs argue exclusively that the district court improperly dismissed this claim on the merits.\\nBecause Plaintiffs have failed to provide any argumentation concerning the district court’s\\nreasoning for dismissing their fraudulent misrepresentation claim, Plaintiffs have forfeited any\\nchallenge to the district court’s disposition of this claim. See, e.g., Radvansky v. City of Olmsted\\nFalls, 395 F.3d 291, 311 (6th Cir. 2005); Rees, 736 F. App’x at 124.\\n\\n IV. CONCLUSION\\n\\n For the above-stated reasons, we AFFIRM the district court.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4434560/\", \"author_raw\": \"CLAY, Circuit Judge\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"CLAY"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"LARSEN"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"READLER"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"CLAY\": \", Circuit\", \"LARSEN\": \", Circuit\", \"READLER\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4657307/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":8,"string":"8"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Michael Scott v. First S. Nat'l Bank\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-08-29\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0220p.06\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\n\n\n\n MICHAEL L. SCOTT; LINDA A. LARKIN, ┐\n Plaintiffs-Appellants, │\n │\n > No. 18-6130\n v. │\n │\n │\n FIRST SOUTHERN NATIONAL BANK, │\n Defendant-Appellee. │\n ┘\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court\n for the Eastern District of Kentucky at Lexington.\n No. 5:16-cv-00281—Karen K. Caldwell, Chief District Judge.\n\n Argued: August 9, 2019\n\n Decided and Filed: August 29, 2019\n\n Before: CLAY, LARSEN, and READLER, Circuit Judges.\n _________________\n\n COUNSEL\n\nARGUED: Richard A. Getty, THE GETTY LAW GROUP, PLLC, Lexington, Kentucky, for\nAppellants. Robert C. “Coley” Stilz III, KINKEAD & STILZ, PLLC, Lexington, Kentucky, for\nAppellee. ON BRIEF: Richard A. Getty, Danielle Harlan, THE GETTY LAW GROUP,\nPLLC, Lexington, Kentucky, for Appellants. Robert C. “Coley” Stilz III, KINKEAD & STILZ,\nPLLC, Lexington, Kentucky, Stanton L. Cave, LAW OFFICE OF STAN CAVE, Lexington,\nKentucky, for Appellee.\n _________________\n\n OPINION\n _________________\n\n CLAY, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs Michael L. Scott and Linda A. Larkin filed a five count\nComplaint in state court against Defendant First Southern National Bank (“First Southern”) after\n\f No. 18-6130 Scott, et al. v. First S. Nat’l Bank Page 2\n\n\nFirst Southern failed to extend additional loans to finance Plaintiffs’ commercial renovation\nproject. First Southern removed the action to federal district court, properly invoking federal\nquestion jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441, for Plaintiffs’ claims under the Fair Credit\nReporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq., and supplemental jurisdiction over\nPlaintiffs’ related state common law claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367. After discovery, First\nSouthern moved for summary judgment on all claims. In response, Plaintiffs filed a motion for\npartial summary judgment on their claim that First Southern breached its duty of good faith and\nfair dealing. The district court granted First Southern’s motion for summary judgment, denied\nPlaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment, and entered judgment in favor of First\nSouthern. Plaintiffs filed this timely appeal.\n\n For the reasons provided below, we AFFIRM the district court.\n\n I. BACKGROUND\n\n A. Factual History\n\n Plaintiffs own two dental practices, several LLC’s that own properties that Plaintiffs use\nto generate rental income, a sports bar, and an indoor basketball gymnasium that they also rent\nout as an event center. Around 2009, Scott began “buying property” that he “could rehab”\nbecause “it was a great time to buy . . . especially in Cincinnati.” (Scott Dep., ECF No. 66-2 at\nPageID #322.) To further his property-investment efforts, Scott obtained a $300,000 commercial\nline of credit (“Credit Line”) from First Southern.\n\n Scott had previously taken out several loans from First Southern, including a home equity\nloan, a line of credit, and a construction loan. From his prior dealings with First Southern, Scott\nknew that First Southern went through a “process” before it “len[t] money or renew[ed] notes to\napprove people for loans.” (Id. at 316.) Scott knew that this process entailed\n“collect[ing] . . . financial information about the borrower” through “[p]ersonal financial\nstatements” and “credit reports” and gathering “information about the collateral that’s going to\nbe pledged.” (Id. at 317.) And Scott understood that First Southern evaluated this financial\ninformation before deciding whether to approve a borrower for a loan.\n\f No. 18-6130 Scott, et al. v. First S. Nat’l Bank Page 3\n\n\n In June 2013, Scott sought a loan from First Southern to convert a vacant former hotel\ninto 26 apartment units and two commercial spaces. To support his loan request, Scott provided\nFirst Southern with a total cost estimate of $941,793.32 for the renovation. Scott submitted the\ncost estimate to Rocky Mason, the Community President of First Southern’s Lexington branch\nwho managed Plaintiffs’ accounts at First Southern. Scott and Mason also communicated about\nthe loan request via text message, discussing, among other things, the terms of the potential loan,\nthe bank’s appraisal of Scott’s collateral, and the bank’s valuation of the renovation project.\n\n After First Southern received the cost estimates for the renovation project from Scott,\nFirst Southern followed its usual process for reviewing a request for a sizable loan. An analyst\nfrom First Southern evaluated Plaintiffs’ financial statements, three years of Plaintiffs’ tax\nreturns, and Plaintiffs’ credit report. The analyst compiled Plaintiffs’ financial information into a\n“loan presentation” that was submitted to First Southern’s Executive Loan Committee. After\nreviewing the loan presentation, the Executive Loan Committee approved Plaintiffs’ loan\nrequest.\n\n On July 23, 2013, Plaintiffs and First Southern executed a Commercial Loan Agreement\nthrough which Frist Southern extended Plaintiffs a commercial loan for the renovation project\n(“Construction Loan”). The Commercial Loan Agreement provided that the “maximum total\nprincipal balance” for the Construction Loan “will not exceed $1,013,519.00.” (Loan\nAgreement, ECF No. 66-11 at PageID #582.) The Commercial Loan Agreement, by its terms,\nrepresented “the complete and final expression of the understanding between” Plaintiffs and First\nSouthern, provided that it could “not be amended or modified by oral agreement,” and stated that\n“[n]o amendment or modification . . . is effective unless made in writing and executed” by\nPlaintiffs and First Southern. (Id. at PageID #587.)\n\n While the Commercial Loan Agreement did not contain any promise that First Southern\nwould extend additional loans to Plaintiffs, Scott believed that First Southern would loan him\nany extra funds needed to complete the renovation. According to Scott, he and Mason had\ndiscussed the possibility of cost overruns before Plaintiffs and First Southern entered into the\nCommercial Loan Agreement; Mason understood that overruns were likely and told Scott that\nbecause of Scott’s longstanding relationship with First Southern, Mason “d[id]n’t see [Scott]\n\f No. 18-6130 Scott, et al. v. First S. Nat’l Bank Page 4\n\n\nhaving any problems” obtaining additional financing. (Scott Dep., ECF No. 66-2 at PageID\n#336.) Scott asserts that Mason “represented [that] the project was going to be finished.” (Id. at\nPageID #345.) Scott states that he relied on Mason’s assurances that Scott could obtain\nadditional funding in deciding to finance the project through First Southern rather than through a\ndifferent lending institution.\n\n In early November 2013, Scott informed Mason via text message that Plaintiffs would\nlikely need an additional $400,000 to complete the renovation. Scott asked Mason to “let me\nknow as soon as possible” if First Southern “cannot do” the additional loan because Scott could\n“get it from PNC” instead. (Text Messages, ECF No. 66-7 at PageID #533.) In response, Mason\nasked Scott to provide a “breakdown” for the additional $400,000 Scott might request. (Id.)\nScott stated that he would have the architect for the renovation project explain to Mason the\nreasons for requesting the additional funds.\n\n On November 9, 2013 and November 27, 2013, the architect provided Mason with\nrevised bids for certain individual components of the renovation. But the architect did not\nprovide an updated estimate of the total cost to complete the project. On January 10, 2014,\nMason emailed Scott, “[i]f you will need more funds, we will need to gather an estimate of what\nit will cost to complete soon.” (ECF No. 77-14 at PageID #1195.) On February 21, 2014, the\narchitect provided First Southern with an updated cost estimate for the entire renovation project.\nThe revised total estimated cost was $1,654,648.65, i.e., approximately $712,000 above the total\ncost for the project that Plaintiffs had represented in their loan application and approximately\n$640,000 more than First Southern had loaned Plaintiffs.\n\n The following week, Mason and Scott met in Cincinnati. Mason states that Scott\nrequested that First Southern loan Plaintiffs an additional $650,000; that Mason requested that\nScott present additional collateral to support his new loan request; and that Scott refused to offer\nadditional collateral. Scott states that Mason never asked that Scott provide additional collateral.\nScott also asserts that additional collateral was not needed because he was already\n“overcollateralized” on his loans with First Southern. (Scott Dep, ECF No. 66-2 at PageID\n#358.) A few days after their meeting, Scott texted Mason to “try [his] best to get the whole\namount” of the additional funds that Scott had requested. (ECF No. 66-7 at PageID #539.)\n\f No. 18-6130 Scott, et al. v. First S. Nat’l Bank Page 5\n\n\n Mason initiated the process of reviewing Scott’s new loan request. This process involved\nobtaining itemized cost breakdowns from the architect, assembling Plaintiffs’ updated financial\ninformation, running new credit checks on Plaintiffs, and ultimately seeking approval of a new\nloan from First Southern’s Executive Loan Committee. When compiling this updated\ninformation, an analyst from First Southern discovered that Plaintiffs had incurred additional\ndebt in the period since First Southern had approved the Construction Loan and that Plaintiffs\nhad failed to disclose this new debt to Frist Southern. After conducting an investigation, First\nSouthern learned that Plaintiffs had obtained approximately $600,000 in loans from United Bank\nto purchase and renovate a gymnasium.\n\n After Mason learned about Plaintiffs’ additional debt burden, Mason spoke with members\nof the Executive Loan Committee. According to John Ball, one of the members of the Executive\nLoan Committee, the Committee determined that the loans Scott had received from United Bank\n“increase[d] leverage and [Scott’s] debt position.” (Ball Dep., ECF No. 66-8 at PageID #562.)\nThe Executive Loan Committee also believed that the renovation project had a “tremendous\namount of [cost] overrun.” (Id. at PageID #562.) For these reasons, the Executive Loan\nCommittee “didn’t feel like it was a safe and sound loan” and denied Scott’s request for\nadditional financing. (Id.) On March 31, 2014, Mason called Scott and informed him that First\nSouthern had denied Scott’s additional loan request.1\n\n Plaintiffs’ Credit Line with First Southern was scheduled to mature on June 24, 2014.\nOn June 17, 2014, First Southern notified Plaintiffs that because Plaintiffs’ request to renew the\nCredit Line was still pending, First Southern would not require Plaintiffs to repay the balance of\nthe Credit Line when it became due; instead, until First Southern rendered an ultimate\ndetermination about whether to renew the Credit Line, First Southern would only require that\nPlaintiffs continue to make interest payments.\n\n\n\n\n 1Later that day, Scott texted Mason, “[n]o hard feelings on the loan. Business is business. I like u as a\nperson and we both know that is all that matters in life. Your daughter is more than welcome to come to the office\nanytime. Good people know good people. U and Shelia r good people. Thanks bro.” (ECF No. 66-7 at PageID\n#540.)\n\f No. 18-6130 Scott, et al. v. First S. Nat’l Bank Page 6\n\n\n Unlike in previous years, First Southern failed to extend the Credit Line’s maturity date\nduring this review period. Because First Southern’s computer system still listed the maturity\ndate for the Credit Line as June 24, 2014, the computer system generated automated delinquency\nreports that it transmitted to the credit bureaus in July and August 2014, damaging Plaintiffs’\ncredit score. First Southern admits that its computer system sent delinquency notices to the\ncredit bureaus but asserts that these notices were proper because Plaintiffs were in fact\ndelinquent; Plaintiffs had failed to pay off the loan balance by the maturity date or make the\nrequired interest payments in July and August 2014.\n\n After First Southern denied his loan request, Scott applied for financing from United\nBank. United Bank loaned Scott $2,040,000. Using the financing he had received from United\nBank, Scott completely payed off the Construction Loan and Credit Line with First Southern in\nearly September 2014. Scott also used the loan from United Bank to complete the renovation\nproject.\n\n Even after Scott paid off his debts with First Southern, First Southern’s automated\ncomputer system continued to report Scott’s entire prior payment history, including the fact that\nhe had previously been delinquent on his loans. In early October 2014, Scott discovered that\nFirst Southern had reported damaging information to the credit bureaus after Clarion Financial,\nwhich regularly provided Plaintiffs credit to purchase dental supplies, denied Plaintiffs’ latest\ncredit request because Plaintiffs’ credit report showed that Plaintiffs had previously been\ndelinquent on their loans with First Southern. After Scott contacted Mason, Mason checked the\nstatus of Scott’s loans and reported to Scott that First Southern’s system indicated that Scott was\n“current.” (ECF No. 66-7 at PageID #548.) Mason texted Scott that “we will work to straighten\n[the situation] out immediately.” (Id.) Scott asserts that he did not contact the credit bureaus to\ncomplain about the reporting error because Mason had assured him that First Southern would\ntake care of the issue.\n\n In October 2014, First Southern submitted amendments to the national credit reporting\nbureaus informing them that Plaintiffs had paid off their loans with First Southern and were no\nlonger delinquent. Mason’s assistant, Shelia Myers, emailed Scott and informed him that\n“Equifax acknowledged receipt of our requested change” to Plaintiffs’ payment history.\n\f No. 18-6130 Scott, et al. v. First S. Nat’l Bank Page 7\n\n\n(Myers Email, ECF No. 77-32 at PageID #1242.) Myers also stated that she had recently spoken\nwith First Southern’s loan administrator and that he believed that Equifax’s having confirmed\nreceipt of the amendment “should suffice in knowing the error had been corrected” and that Scott\nshould “NOT . . . pull a credit report just to confirm the correction” because “each time a report\nis pulled, the credit score lowers a bit.” (Id.)\n\n In March 2015, Plaintiffs’ lawyer sent First Southern a letter complaining about First\nSouthern’s “erroneous reporting” to the credit bureaus and the financial and reputational damage\nit caused Plaintiffs. The letter also alleged that First Southern deliberately provided the credit\nbureaus with false and damaging information about Plaintiffs’ payment history in retaliation for\nPlaintiffs financing the basketball gymnasium project through United Bank. In June 2015,\nPlaintiffs’ lawyer sent First Southern another letter that alleged continued harms to Plaintiffs\nbecause of First Southern’s erroneous reporting. Both letters stated that Plaintiffs were suffering\nharms because of First Southern’s past erroneous reporting. Neither letter alleged that First\nSouthern continued to provide inaccurate information to the credit bureaus.\n\n Despite First Southern’s representation in October 2014 that the reporting issue had been\nremedied, the credit bureaus continued to report the delinquency on Plaintiffs’ credit report.\nIn fact, First Southern had reported to TransUnion that Plaintiffs were delinquent in September,\nOctober, and November of 2014, even though Plaintiffs had paid off the entire balance of their\nloans in early September. On August 20, 2015, Plaintiffs’ attorney sent First Southern a letter\nstating that Plaintiffs had received a credit report earlier that week that continued to show\ndelinquencies from September, October, and November of 2014 based on Plaintiffs’ previous\naccounts with First Southern. On September 11, 2015, First Southern submitted a second\namendment to the national credit bureaus to correct the erroneous information that First Southern\nhad previously provided stating that Plaintiffs were delinquent. First Southern’s second\namendment notice remedied the erroneous delinquency reports; during his deposition, Scott\nstated that any credit issue he had previously experienced because of First Southern’s inaccurate\nreporting had been “resolved.” (Scott Dep., ECF No. 66-2 at PageID #388.)\n\f No. 18-6130 Scott, et al. v. First S. Nat’l Bank Page 8\n\n\n B. Procedural History\n\n Plaintiffs filed a five-count Complaint, asserting that First Southern: violated the FCRA\nby willfully and/or negligently failing to fully and timely investigate Plaintiffs’ complaints that\nFirst Southern had inaccurately reported Plaintiffs’ payment history to the credit bureaus (Counts\nI and II); beached its duty of good faith and fair dealing and tortiously interfered with Plaintiffs’\nbusiness relationships by deliberately reporting false information to the credit bureaus in\nretaliation for Plaintiffs’ financing the gymnasium project through United Bank (Counts III and\nV); and made fraudulent misrepresentations that First Southern would loan Plaintiffs additional\nfunds as necessary to complete the renovation (Count IV). First Southern moved for summary\njudgment on all of Plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs filed a cross-motion for partial summary\njudgment on their claim that First Southern breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing. The\ndistrict court granted First Southern’s motion for summary judgment, denied Plaintiffs’ cross-\nmotion for partial summary judgment, and entered judgment for First Southern. This timely\nappeal followed.\n\n II. STANDARD OF REVIEW\n\n “[T]his Court reviews a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo.”\nRd. Sprinkler Fitters Local Union No. 669, U.A., AFL-CIO v. Dorn Sprinkler Co., 669 F.3d 790,\n793 (6th Cir. 2012) (citing Trs. of Resilient Floor Decorators Ins. Fund v. A & M Installations,\nInc., 395 F.3d 244, 247–48 (6th Cir. 2005)).\n\n Summary judgment is proper “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to\nany material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P.\n56(a). “A dispute about a material fact is genuine ‘if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury\ncould return a verdict for the non-moving party.’” Smith v. Perkins Bd. of Educ., 708 F.3d 821,\n825 (6th Cir. 2013) (quoting Ford v. Gen. Motors Corp., 305 F.3d 545, 551 (6th Cir. 2002)).\nWhen evaluating a motion for summary judgment, the court must “view[] [the evidence] in the\nlight most favorable to the party opposing the motion.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v.\nZenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (internal quotation marks omitted). Further, “all\nreasonable inferences must be made in favor of the non-moving party.” Moran v. Al Basit LLC,\n\f No. 18-6130 Scott, et al. v. First S. Nat’l Bank Page 9\n\n\n788 F.3d 201, 204 (6th Cir. 2015) (citing Little Caesar Enters., Inc. v. OPPCO, LLC, 219 F.3d\n547, 551 (6th Cir. 2000)). The moving party bears the burden of showing that no genuine issues\nof material fact exist. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324–25 (1986).\n\n III. DISCUSSION\n\n A. FCRA Claims\n\n Plaintiffs argue that the district court improperly granted First Southern summary\njudgment on Plaintiffs’ FCRA claims. Plaintiffs concede that they “did not notify the credit\nbureaus of the false reports submitted to them by [First Southern].” (Pls.’ Br. at 32.) But\nPlaintiffs maintain that they would have notified the credit bureaus but-for Mason’s\nrepresentation that First Southern would “take care” of the inaccurate reporting of Plaintiffs’\npayment history and Myers’ recommendation that Plaintiffs not pull a credit report to confirm\nthat the reporting error had been remedied. (Id. at 32–33.) Plaintiffs assert that the district court\nviolated principles of justice and contravened the consumer-protection purposes of the FCRA by\ngranting summary judgment to First Southern on Plaintiffs’ FCRA claims. In response, First\nSouthern argues that Plaintiffs failed to trigger First Southern’s obligations under the FCRA\nbecause Plaintiffs never filed a dispute with a consumer reporting agency.\n\n As explained below, the district court properly granted First Southern’s motion for\nsummary judgment on Plaintiffs’ FCRA claims. Plaintiffs never notified a consumer reporting\nagency about their dispute, a prerequisite for prevailing on their FCRA claims.\n\n 1. Relevant Legal Principles\n\n “Under the FCRA, those who furnish information to consumer reporting agencies have\ntwo obligations: (1) to provide accurate information; and (2) to undertake an investigation upon\nreceipt of a notice of dispute regarding credit information that is furnished.” Downs v. Clayton\nHomes, Inc., 88 F. App’x 851, 853 (6th Cir. 2004); see 15 U.S.C. § 1681s–2. The FCRA\n“creates a private right of action” for consumers to enforce the requirement under § 1681s–2(b)\nthat furnishers of information investigate upon receiving notice of a dispute, but not the\nrequirement under § 1681s–2(a) that furnishers of information initially provide accurate\n\f No. 18-6130 Scott, et al. v. First S. Nat’l Bank Page 10\n\n\ninformation to consumer reporting agencies. Boggio v. USAA Fed. Sav. Bank, 696 F.3d 611, 615\n(6th Cir. 2012).\n\n This Court has repeatedly held that consumers must file a dispute with a consumer\nreporting agency to trigger the furnisher’s duty to investigate under § 1681s–2(b). See, e.g.,\nMerritt v. Experian, 560 F. App’x 525, 528–29 (6th Cir. 2014) (“‘Furnishers’ of information to\nconsumer reporting agencies do have certain responsibilities to investigate [under the FCRA]—\nbut only after receiving a request from a consumer reporting agency to respond to a dispute.”)\n(emphasis added); Boggio, 696 F.3d at 615–16 (holding that “consumers may step in to enforce\ntheir rights only after a furnisher has received proper notice of a dispute from a [credit reporting\nagency]”) (emphasis added); Brown v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 507 F. App’x 543, 547 (6th Cir.\n2012) (“A private cause of action against a furnisher of information does not arise until a\nconsumer reporting agency provides proper notice of a dispute.”); see also Downs, 88 F. App’x\nat 853–54 (explaining that to implicate § 1681s–2(b)’s duty that a furnisher of information\nconduct an investigation “the plaintiff must show that the furnisher received notice from a\nconsumer reporting agency.”).\n\n A consumer’s complaining directly to a furnisher of information about a purported error\nin the information the furnisher supplied to a consumer reporting agency does not trigger the\nfurnisher’s duty to investigate under the FCRA. See, e.g., Brown, 507 F. App’x at 547 (“Directly\ncontacting the furnisher of credit information does not actuate the furnisher’s obligation to\ninvestigate a complaint.”) (citing Nelson v. Chase Manhattan Mortg. Corp., 282 F.3d 1057, 1060\n(9th Cir. 2002)); Downs, 88 F. App’x at 853–54 (explaining that “the plaintiff must show that the\nfurnisher received notice from a consumer reporting agency, not the plaintiff, that the credit\ninformation is disputed”).\n\n 2. Application to the Matter at Hand\n\n The district court correctly granted summary judgment to First Southern on Plaintiffs’\nFCRA claims. Because Plaintiffs never filed a dispute with a consumer reporting agency, First\nSouthern’s duty to investigate under § 1681s–2(b) was never activated. See, e.g., Merritt, 560 F.\nApp’x at 528–29; Boggio, 696 F.3d at 615–16; Brown, 507 F. App’x at 547; Downs, 88 F. App’x\n\f No. 18-6130 Scott, et al. v. First S. Nat’l Bank Page 11\n\n\nat 853–54. Plaintiffs’ notifying First Southern directly about the errors in the information that\nFirst Southern had furnished to the consumer reporting agencies failed to trigger First Southern’s\nduty to investigate. See, e.g., Brown, 507 F. App’x at 547 (citing Nelson, 282 F.3d at 1060);\nDowns, 88 F. App’x at 853–54. Therefore, the district court properly granted summary judgment\nin favor of First Southern on Plaintiffs’ FCRA claims.\n\n Plaintiffs do not assert any legal arguments for why the district court erred by dismissing\ntheir FCRA claims. Rather, Plaintiffs rely exclusively on a policy argument. Plaintiffs contend\nthat by dismissing their FCRA claims despite Mason’s representation that First Southern would\nremedy the problem with Plaintiffs’ payment history and Myers’ admonition that Plaintiffs’ not\ngenerate a credit report to confirm that the problem had been remedied, the district court allowed\nFirst Southern to “have its cake and eat it too,” in contravention of the pro-consumer purposes of\nthe FCRA. (Pls.’ Br. at 33.) Plaintiffs fail to appreciate that the FCRA protects both consumers\nand furnishers. For instance, this Court has explained that while the FCRA “provides consumers\nwith a private remedy against negligent or willful misconduct by a furnisher . . . it\nsimultaneously protects furnishers from answering frivolous consumer disputes.” Boggio,\n696 F.3d at 616; see also Nelson, 282 F.3d at 1060 (describing the FCRA’s reporting\nrequirement as “a filtering mechanism” that protects furnishers of information from frivolous\nconsumer complaints). One way that the FCRA protects furnishers is by requiring that a\nconsumer file a dispute with a consumer reporting agency, and that the consumer reporting\nagency screen the complaint and provide notice of the dispute to a furnisher if warranted, before\nthe consumer may assert a private right of action against the furnisher. See Boggio, 696 F.3d at\n614–16. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ argument is unpersuasive.2\n\n\n\n\n 2Plaintiffs’ most promising avenue to attempt to avoid application of the FCRA’s notice requirement may\nhave been through the doctrine of equitable estoppel. This Circuit has held that equitable estoppel can bar a\ndefendant from raising an affirmative defense, see E.E.O.C. v. Kentucky State Police Dep’t, 80 F.3d 1086, 1095 (6th\nCir. 1996), and, in some instances, from contesting an element of a plaintiff’s claim, see Thomas v. Miller, 489 F.3d\n293, 302 (6th Cir. 2007). This Circuit has never decided whether equitable estoppel could prevent a defendant from\nasserting that a plaintiff failed to satisfy the FCRA’s notice requirement.\n Because Plaintiffs never raised an equitable estoppel argument, we do not decide at present whether, in\nappropriate circumstances and if properly raised, a furnisher of consumer credit information could be equitably\nestopped from arguing that the plaintiff failed to file a dispute with a consumer reporting agency.\n\f No. 18-6130 Scott, et al. v. First S. Nat’l Bank Page 12\n\n\n 3. Summary\n\n We find that the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of First\nSouthern on Plaintiffs’ FCRA claims.\n\n B. Claims for Breach of the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing and Tortious\n Interference with Contractual Relationships\n\n Plaintiffs assert that the district court erroneously held that the FCRA preempts state\ncommon law claims. Plaintiffs further assert that the district court improperly dismissed\nPlaintiffs’ claims for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing and tortious interference\nwith contractual relationships because First Southern deliberately harmed Plaintiffs’ credit score\nby not extending the maturity date on the LOC and by allowing its computer system to send false\ndelinquency notices to the credit bureaus. In response, First Southern argues that the district\ncourt correctly held that the FCRA preempts state common law claims that concern a furnisher’s\ntransmission of information to consumer reporting agencies. First Southern asserts that because\nPlaintiffs’ claims arise from First Southern’s reporting obligations, the district court properly\ndismissed Plaintiffs’ claims as preempted by the FCRA.\n\n As explained below, the district court correctly concluded that the FCRA preempts state\ncommon law claims involving a furnisher’s reporting of information to consumer reporting\nagencies. Further, the district court correctly found that the FCRA preempts Plaintiffs’ claims of\nbreach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing and tortious interference with contractual\nrelationships because these claims relate to First Southern’s reporting obligations.\n\n 1. Relevant Legal Principles\n\n The FCRA provides that “[n]o requirement or prohibition may be imposed under the laws\nof any State . . . with respect to any subject matter regulated under . . . section 1681s-2 of this\ntitle, relating to the responsibilities of persons who furnish information to consumer reporting\nagencies[.]” 15 U.S.C. § 1681t(b)(1)(F). This Court has held that the FCRA preempts state\ncommon law claims. Ellen Sparks v. Countrywide Homes Loans, Inc., et al., No. 15-6330, slip\nop. at 3 (6th Cir. Sep. 2, 2016) (per curiam) (holding that the FCRA preempted the plaintiff’s\ncommon law negligence claim arising from the defendants’ furnishing of information to credit\n\f No. 18-6130 Scott, et al. v. First S. Nat’l Bank Page 13\n\n\nreporting agencies); see also Lloyd v. Midland Funding, LLC, 639 F. App’x 301, 307 (6th Cir.\n2016) (explaining that the FCRA would preempt plaintiffs’ common law claims if said claims\n“rel[ied] on the proposition that [the defendant] was a furnisher of information” under the\nFCRA). The other Courts of Appeals that have addressed whether the FCRA preempts state\ncommon law claims have also answered the question in the affirmative. See, e.g., Macpherson v.\nJPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 665 F.3d 45, 47–48 (2d Cir. 2011); Purcell v. Bank of Am.,\n659 F.3d 622, 625–26 (7th Cir. 2011).\n\n 2. Application to the Matter at Hand\n\n The district court correctly held that the FCRA preempts Plaintiffs’ common law claims\nof breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing and tortious interference with contractual\nrelationships. Plaintiffs’ common law claims arise from First Southern’s reporting incorrect\ninformation to the credit bureaus. Because these common law claims concern the same “subject\nmatter regulated under . . . section 1681s-2 of [the FCRA],” see § 1681t(b)(1)(F), they are\npreempted by the FCRA. See Sparks, No. 15-6330, slip op. at 3; Macpherson, 665 F.3d at 47–\n48; Purcell, 659 F.3d at 625–26; see also Lloyd, 639 F. App’x at 307. The fact that Plaintiffs’\nclaims arise under state common law, rather than state statutory law, does not save them from\npreemption.\n\n Plaintiffs rely on a district court case from the Western District of Kentucky to argue that\nthe FCRA preempts only state statutory claims. See Miller v. Wells Fargo & Co., No. 3:05-CV-\n42-S, 2008 WL 793676, at *8 (W.D. Ky. Mar. 24, 2008). The district court in Miller perceived a\n“tension” between § 1681t(b)(1)(F) and § 1681h(e), the FCRA’s two preemption provisions,\nbecause § 1681h(e) “preempts state law claims for defamation, invasion of privacy, and\nnegligence, to the extent that the plaintiff cannot prove the defendant acted with malice or willful\nintent to injure” while § 1681t(b)(1)(F), enacted twenty-six years later, “prohibits all state claims\nagainst furnishers.” Id. at *7 (emphasis added). The Miller court believed that reconciling this\ntension required adopting what some district courts have referred to as the “statutory approach,”\nthat is, holding that the FCRA preempts state statutory claims but not state common law claims.\nId. a *10.\n\f No. 18-6130 Scott, et al. v. First S. Nat’l Bank Page 14\n\n\n While a handful of district courts have followed the “statutory approach,” the two Courts\nof Appeals that have addressed the issue both explicitly rejected the “statutory approach” and\nheld that the FCRA preempts state common law claims. In Purcell, 659 F.3d 622, the Seventh\nCircuit explained why § 1681t(b)(1)(F) and § 1681h(e) are not in conflict,\n\n Unlike these judges, we do not perceive any inconsistency between the two\n statutes. Section 1681h(e) preempts some state claims that could arise out of\n reports to credit agencies; § 1681t(b)(1)(F) preempts more of these claims.\n Section 1681h(e) does not create a right to recover for wilfully false reports; it just\n says that a particular paragraph does not preempt claims of that stripe. Section\n 1681h(e) was enacted in 1970. Twenty-six years later, in 1996, Congress added\n § 1681t(b)(1)(F) to the United States Code. The same legislation also added\n § 1681s–2. The extra federal remedy in § 1681s–2 was accompanied by extra\n preemption in § 1681t(b)(1)(F), in order to implement the new plan under which\n reporting to credit agencies would be supervised by state and federal\n administrative agencies rather than judges. Reading the earlier statute,\n § 1681h(e), to defeat the later-enacted system in § 1681s–2 and § 1681t(b)(1)(F),\n would contradict fundamental norms of statutory interpretation.\n Our point is not that § 1681t(b)(1)(F) repeals § 1681h(e) by implication. It is that\n the statutes are compatible: the first-enacted statute preempts some state\n regulation of reports to credit agencies, and the second-enacted statute preempts\n more. There is no more conflict between these laws than there would be between\n a 1970 statute setting a speed limit of 60 for all roads in national parks and a 1996\n statute setting a speed limit of 55. It is easy to comply with both: don’t drive\n more than 55 miles per hour. Just as the later statute lowers the speed limit\n without repealing the first (which means that, if the second statute should be\n repealed, the speed limit would rise to 60 rather than vanishing), so\n § 1681t(b)(1)(F) reduces the scope of state regulation without repealing any other\n law. This understanding does not vitiate the final words of § 1681h(e), because\n there are exceptions to § 1681t(b)(1)(F). When it drops out, § 1681h(e) remains.\n But, even if our understanding creates some surplusage, courts must do what is\n essential if the more recent enactment is to operate as designed.\n\nPurcell, 659 F.3d at 625. In a decision issued shortly after Purcell, the Second Circuit followed\nthe Seventh Circuit’s conclusion that “§ 1681h(e) is compatible with § 1681t(b)(1)(F)” and held\nthat state common law claims “are preempted by the plain language of § 1681t(b)(1)(F).”\nMacpherson, 665 F.3d at 48 (explaining that “the operative language in § 1681h(e) provides only\nthat the provision does not preempt a certain narrow class of state law claims; it does not prevent\nthe later-enacted § 1681t(b)(1)(F) from accomplishing a more broadly-sweeping preemption.”)\n\f No. 18-6130 Scott, et al. v. First S. Nat’l Bank Page 15\n\n\n We follow the prior decisions from this Circuit and the other Courts of Appeals that have\ndecided the issue and hold that the FCRA preempts both state statutory and state common law\nclaims. As the Second Circuit held in Macpherson, the plain language of § 1681t(b)(1)(F)\npreempts all state “laws” without distinguishing between state statutory law and state common\nlaw. See Bates v. Dura Auto. Sys., Inc., 625 F.3d 283, 285 (6th Cir. 2010) (“When we can\ndiscern an unambiguous and plain meaning from the language of a statute, our task is at an\nend.”) (quoting Bartlik v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 62 F.3d 163, 166 (6th Cir. 1995) (internal\nquotation marks omitted)). Based on its plain language, § 1681t(b)(1)(F) preempts state\ncommon law claims.3\n\n Like the Seventh Circuit in Purcell and the Second Circuit in Macpherson, we conclude\nthat the FCRA’s preemption provisions are not in conflict. Congress implemented § 1681h(e) as\npart of the first iteration of the FCRA. When Congress amended the FCRA in 1996, Congress\ndecided to impose additional duties on furnishers (as codified in § 1681s–2) and, as part of the\nmodified statutory scheme, also decided to preempt additional state law claims (through\n§ 1681t(b)(1)(F)). There is nothing remarkable about Congress changing the scope of federal\npreemption of state law when it refines a previously-enacted statutory scheme. See, e.g.,\nCipollone v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 505 U.S. 504, 520 (1992) (describing the preemption provision in\nthe Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act of 1969 (“PHCSA”) as “much broader” than the\npreemption provision in the 1965 version of the PHCSA). Further, as the Seventh Circuit\nexplained in Purcell, “courts do not read old statutes to defeat the operation of newer ones.”\nPurcell, 659 F.3d at 626. But accepting Plaintiffs’ argument that the FCRA’s original\npreemption provision, § 1681h(e), preserved state law claims governed by the plain language of\nthe later-enacted preemption provision, § 1681t(b)(1)(F), “would defeat the 1996 decision [by\nCongress] that administrative action rather than litigation is the right way to deal with false\nreports to credit agencies.” Id.\n\n\n\n\n 3Plaintiffsdo not develop a textual argument that the word “laws” in § 1681t(b)(1)(F) refers only to state\nstatutory laws as opposed to state common law. But the Seventh Circuit persuasively rejected this argument in\nPurcell, holding that the word “laws” in § 1681t(b)(1)(F) applies to “all sources of legal rules” including “judicial\ndecisions.” 659 F.3d at 624 (citing Premium Mortg. Corp. v. Equifax, Inc., 583 F.3d 103, 106–07 (2d Cir. 2009)).\n\f No. 18-6130 Scott, et al. v. First S. Nat’l Bank Page 16\n\n\n The Supreme Court’s decision in Cipollone further diminishes Plaintiffs’ argument that\nthis Court should adopt the “statutory approach” to the scope of preemption under the FCRA. In\nCipollone, the Supreme Court held that by precluding “requirement[s] or\nprohibition[s] . . . imposed under State law,” the PHCSA preempted state common law actions.\n505 U.S. at 522–24. The relevant language in § 1681t(b)(1)(F) is nearly analogous to the\nlanguage from the PHCSA at issue in Cipollone. And, like the PHCSA’s preemption provision,\n§ 1681t(b)(1)(F) preempts state common law claims.\n\n 3. Summary\n\n The FCRA preempts state common law causes of action concerning a furnisher’s\nreporting of consumer credit information to consumer reporting agencies. Plaintiffs’ claims for\nbreach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing and tortious interference with contractual\nrelationships concern First Southern’s reporting of Plaintiffs’ credit information to consumer\nreporting agencies. Therefore, the district court correctly concluded that the FCRA preempts\nPlaintiffs’ claims for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing and tortious interference\nwith contractual relationships.\n\n C. Fraudulent Misrepresentation Claim\n\n As an initial matter, we note that the FCRA does not preempt Plaintiffs’ fraudulent\nmisrepresentation claim. Plaintiffs assert that First Southern fraudulently represented to\nPlaintiffs that First Southern would loan additional funds to Plaintiffs as necessary to complete\nthe renovation. Because Plaintiffs’ fraudulent misrepresentation claim does not arise from First\nSouthern’s reporting obligations as a furnisher of consumer credit information, the FCRA does\nnot preempt this claim. See § 1681t(b)(1)(F).\n\n As explained below, Plaintiffs forfeited this issue on appeal because they failed to discuss\nthe district court’s reasoning for granting First Southern’s motion for summary judgment on their\nfraudulent misrepresentation claim.\n\f No. 18-6130 Scott, et al. v. First S. Nat’l Bank Page 17\n\n\n 1. Relevant Legal Principles\n\n In this Circuit, an appellant forfeits an argument that he fails to raise in his opening brief.\nSee, e.g., In re Isaacs, 895 F.3d 904, 917 (6th Cir. 2018) (citing Marks v. Newcourt Credit\nGroup, Inc., 342 F.3d 444, 462 (6th Cir. 2003)). Further, “where a plaintiff fails to address the\ndistrict court’s reasoning in disposing of a claim on summary judgment or motion to dismiss, we\nhave deemed the claim forfeited.” Rees v. W.M. Barr & Co., Inc., 736 F. App’x 119, 124–25\n(6th Cir. 2018) (collecting cases); see also Grosswiler v. Freudenberg-Nok Sealing Techs.,\n642 F. App’x 596, 599 (6th Cir. 2016) (holding that plaintiffs abandoned their claim on appeal\nbecause they did not “challenge or even mention” one of the district court’s bases for granting\nsummary judgment).\n\n 2. Application to the Matter at Hand\n\n Plaintiffs have forfeited their appeal of the district court’s dismissal of their fraudulent\nmisrepresentation claim. The district court held that Plaintiffs’ fraudulent misrepresentation\nclaim was barred by Kentucky’s statute of frauds, K.R.S. § 371.010. Because the district court\ndismissed the claim under Kentucky’s statute of frauds, it did not reach the merits of Plaintiffs’\nfraudulent misrepresentation claim. However, in their briefing before this Court, Plaintiffs do\nnot address the district court’s reasoning. Instead of arguing that the district court erred by\nfinding that Kentucky’s statue of frauds barred their fraudulent misrepresentation claim,\nPlaintiffs argue exclusively that the district court improperly dismissed this claim on the merits.\nBecause Plaintiffs have failed to provide any argumentation concerning the district court’s\nreasoning for dismissing their fraudulent misrepresentation claim, Plaintiffs have forfeited any\nchallenge to the district court’s disposition of this claim. See, e.g., Radvansky v. City of Olmsted\nFalls, 395 F.3d 291, 311 (6th Cir. 2005); Rees, 736 F. App’x at 124.\n\n IV. CONCLUSION\n\n For the above-stated reasons, we AFFIRM the district court.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Michael Scott v. First S. Nat'l Bank\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-08-29\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0220p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n MICHAEL L. SCOTT; LINDA A. LARKIN, ┐\\n Plaintiffs-Appellants, │\\n │\\n > No. 18-6130\\n v. │\\n │\\n │\\n FIRST SOUTHERN NATIONAL BANK, │\\n Defendant-Appellee. │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Eastern District of Kentucky at Lexington.\\n No. 5:16-cv-00281—Karen K. Caldwell, Chief District Judge.\\n\\n Argued: August 9, 2019\\n\\n Decided and Filed: August 29, 2019\\n\\n Before: CLAY, LARSEN, and READLER, Circuit Judges.\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nARGUED: Richard A. Getty, THE GETTY LAW GROUP, PLLC, Lexington, Kentucky, for\\nAppellants. Robert C. “Coley” Stilz III, KINKEAD & STILZ, PLLC, Lexington, Kentucky, for\\nAppellee. ON BRIEF: Richard A. Getty, Danielle Harlan, THE GETTY LAW GROUP,\\nPLLC, Lexington, Kentucky, for Appellants. Robert C. “Coley” Stilz III, KINKEAD & STILZ,\\nPLLC, Lexington, Kentucky, Stanton L. Cave, LAW OFFICE OF STAN CAVE, Lexington,\\nKentucky, for Appellee.\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n CLAY, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs Michael L. Scott and Linda A. Larkin filed a five count\\nComplaint in state court against Defendant First Southern National Bank (“First Southern”) after\\n\\f No. 18-6130 Scott, et al. v. First S. Nat’l Bank Page 2\\n\\n\\nFirst Southern failed to extend additional loans to finance Plaintiffs’ commercial renovation\\nproject. First Southern removed the action to federal district court, properly invoking federal\\nquestion jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441, for Plaintiffs’ claims under the Fair Credit\\nReporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq., and supplemental jurisdiction over\\nPlaintiffs’ related state common law claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367. After discovery, First\\nSouthern moved for summary judgment on all claims. In response, Plaintiffs filed a motion for\\npartial summary judgment on their claim that First Southern breached its duty of good faith and\\nfair dealing. The district court granted First Southern’s motion for summary judgment, denied\\nPlaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment, and entered judgment in favor of First\\nSouthern. Plaintiffs filed this timely appeal.\\n\\n For the reasons provided below, we AFFIRM the district court.\\n\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n\\n A. Factual History\\n\\n Plaintiffs own two dental practices, several LLC’s that own properties that Plaintiffs use\\nto generate rental income, a sports bar, and an indoor basketball gymnasium that they also rent\\nout as an event center. Around 2009, Scott began “buying property” that he “could rehab”\\nbecause “it was a great time to buy . . . especially in Cincinnati.” (Scott Dep., ECF No. 66-2 at\\nPageID #322.) To further his property-investment efforts, Scott obtained a $300,000 commercial\\nline of credit (“Credit Line”) from First Southern.\\n\\n Scott had previously taken out several loans from First Southern, including a home equity\\nloan, a line of credit, and a construction loan. From his prior dealings with First Southern, Scott\\nknew that First Southern went through a “process” before it “len[t] money or renew[ed] notes to\\napprove people for loans.” (Id. at 316.) Scott knew that this process entailed\\n“collect[ing] . . . financial information about the borrower” through “[p]ersonal financial\\nstatements” and “credit reports” and gathering “information about the collateral that’s going to\\nbe pledged.” (Id. at 317.) And Scott understood that First Southern evaluated this financial\\ninformation before deciding whether to approve a borrower for a loan.\\n\\f No. 18-6130 Scott, et al. v. First S. Nat’l Bank Page 3\\n\\n\\n In June 2013, Scott sought a loan from First Southern to convert a vacant former hotel\\ninto 26 apartment units and two commercial spaces. To support his loan request, Scott provided\\nFirst Southern with a total cost estimate of $941,793.32 for the renovation. Scott submitted the\\ncost estimate to Rocky Mason, the Community President of First Southern’s Lexington branch\\nwho managed Plaintiffs’ accounts at First Southern. Scott and Mason also communicated about\\nthe loan request via text message, discussing, among other things, the terms of the potential loan,\\nthe bank’s appraisal of Scott’s collateral, and the bank’s valuation of the renovation project.\\n\\n After First Southern received the cost estimates for the renovation project from Scott,\\nFirst Southern followed its usual process for reviewing a request for a sizable loan. An analyst\\nfrom First Southern evaluated Plaintiffs’ financial statements, three years of Plaintiffs’ tax\\nreturns, and Plaintiffs’ credit report. The analyst compiled Plaintiffs’ financial information into a\\n“loan presentation” that was submitted to First Southern’s Executive Loan Committee. After\\nreviewing the loan presentation, the Executive Loan Committee approved Plaintiffs’ loan\\nrequest.\\n\\n On July 23, 2013, Plaintiffs and First Southern executed a Commercial Loan Agreement\\nthrough which Frist Southern extended Plaintiffs a commercial loan for the renovation project\\n(“Construction Loan”). The Commercial Loan Agreement provided that the “maximum total\\nprincipal balance” for the Construction Loan “will not exceed $1,013,519.00.” (Loan\\nAgreement, ECF No. 66-11 at PageID #582.) The Commercial Loan Agreement, by its terms,\\nrepresented “the complete and final expression of the understanding between” Plaintiffs and First\\nSouthern, provided that it could “not be amended or modified by oral agreement,” and stated that\\n“[n]o amendment or modification . . . is effective unless made in writing and executed” by\\nPlaintiffs and First Southern. (Id. at PageID #587.)\\n\\n While the Commercial Loan Agreement did not contain any promise that First Southern\\nwould extend additional loans to Plaintiffs, Scott believed that First Southern would loan him\\nany extra funds needed to complete the renovation. According to Scott, he and Mason had\\ndiscussed the possibility of cost overruns before Plaintiffs and First Southern entered into the\\nCommercial Loan Agreement; Mason understood that overruns were likely and told Scott that\\nbecause of Scott’s longstanding relationship with First Southern, Mason “d[id]n’t see [Scott]\\n\\f No. 18-6130 Scott, et al. v. First S. Nat’l Bank Page 4\\n\\n\\nhaving any problems” obtaining additional financing. (Scott Dep., ECF No. 66-2 at PageID\\n#336.) Scott asserts that Mason “represented [that] the project was going to be finished.” (Id. at\\nPageID #345.) Scott states that he relied on Mason’s assurances that Scott could obtain\\nadditional funding in deciding to finance the project through First Southern rather than through a\\ndifferent lending institution.\\n\\n In early November 2013, Scott informed Mason via text message that Plaintiffs would\\nlikely need an additional $400,000 to complete the renovation. Scott asked Mason to “let me\\nknow as soon as possible” if First Southern “cannot do” the additional loan because Scott could\\n“get it from PNC” instead. (Text Messages, ECF No. 66-7 at PageID #533.) In response, Mason\\nasked Scott to provide a “breakdown” for the additional $400,000 Scott might request. (Id.)\\nScott stated that he would have the architect for the renovation project explain to Mason the\\nreasons for requesting the additional funds.\\n\\n On November 9, 2013 and November 27, 2013, the architect provided Mason with\\nrevised bids for certain individual components of the renovation. But the architect did not\\nprovide an updated estimate of the total cost to complete the project. On January 10, 2014,\\nMason emailed Scott, “[i]f you will need more funds, we will need to gather an estimate of what\\nit will cost to complete soon.” (ECF No. 77-14 at PageID #1195.) On February 21, 2014, the\\narchitect provided First Southern with an updated cost estimate for the entire renovation project.\\nThe revised total estimated cost was $1,654,648.65, i.e., approximately $712,000 above the total\\ncost for the project that Plaintiffs had represented in their loan application and approximately\\n$640,000 more than First Southern had loaned Plaintiffs.\\n\\n The following week, Mason and Scott met in Cincinnati. Mason states that Scott\\nrequested that First Southern loan Plaintiffs an additional $650,000; that Mason requested that\\nScott present additional collateral to support his new loan request; and that Scott refused to offer\\nadditional collateral. Scott states that Mason never asked that Scott provide additional collateral.\\nScott also asserts that additional collateral was not needed because he was already\\n“overcollateralized” on his loans with First Southern. (Scott Dep, ECF No. 66-2 at PageID\\n#358.) A few days after their meeting, Scott texted Mason to “try [his] best to get the whole\\namount” of the additional funds that Scott had requested. (ECF No. 66-7 at PageID #539.)\\n\\f No. 18-6130 Scott, et al. v. First S. Nat’l Bank Page 5\\n\\n\\n Mason initiated the process of reviewing Scott’s new loan request. This process involved\\nobtaining itemized cost breakdowns from the architect, assembling Plaintiffs’ updated financial\\ninformation, running new credit checks on Plaintiffs, and ultimately seeking approval of a new\\nloan from First Southern’s Executive Loan Committee. When compiling this updated\\ninformation, an analyst from First Southern discovered that Plaintiffs had incurred additional\\ndebt in the period since First Southern had approved the Construction Loan and that Plaintiffs\\nhad failed to disclose this new debt to Frist Southern. After conducting an investigation, First\\nSouthern learned that Plaintiffs had obtained approximately $600,000 in loans from United Bank\\nto purchase and renovate a gymnasium.\\n\\n After Mason learned about Plaintiffs’ additional debt burden, Mason spoke with members\\nof the Executive Loan Committee. According to John Ball, one of the members of the Executive\\nLoan Committee, the Committee determined that the loans Scott had received from United Bank\\n“increase[d] leverage and [Scott’s] debt position.” (Ball Dep., ECF No. 66-8 at PageID #562.)\\nThe Executive Loan Committee also believed that the renovation project had a “tremendous\\namount of [cost] overrun.” (Id. at PageID #562.) For these reasons, the Executive Loan\\nCommittee “didn’t feel like it was a safe and sound loan” and denied Scott’s request for\\nadditional financing. (Id.) On March 31, 2014, Mason called Scott and informed him that First\\nSouthern had denied Scott’s additional loan request.1\\n\\n Plaintiffs’ Credit Line with First Southern was scheduled to mature on June 24, 2014.\\nOn June 17, 2014, First Southern notified Plaintiffs that because Plaintiffs’ request to renew the\\nCredit Line was still pending, First Southern would not require Plaintiffs to repay the balance of\\nthe Credit Line when it became due; instead, until First Southern rendered an ultimate\\ndetermination about whether to renew the Credit Line, First Southern would only require that\\nPlaintiffs continue to make interest payments.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 1Later that day, Scott texted Mason, “[n]o hard feelings on the loan. Business is business. I like u as a\\nperson and we both know that is all that matters in life. Your daughter is more than welcome to come to the office\\nanytime. Good people know good people. U and Shelia r good people. Thanks bro.” (ECF No. 66-7 at PageID\\n#540.)\\n\\f No. 18-6130 Scott, et al. v. First S. Nat’l Bank Page 6\\n\\n\\n Unlike in previous years, First Southern failed to extend the Credit Line’s maturity date\\nduring this review period. Because First Southern’s computer system still listed the maturity\\ndate for the Credit Line as June 24, 2014, the computer system generated automated delinquency\\nreports that it transmitted to the credit bureaus in July and August 2014, damaging Plaintiffs’\\ncredit score. First Southern admits that its computer system sent delinquency notices to the\\ncredit bureaus but asserts that these notices were proper because Plaintiffs were in fact\\ndelinquent; Plaintiffs had failed to pay off the loan balance by the maturity date or make the\\nrequired interest payments in July and August 2014.\\n\\n After First Southern denied his loan request, Scott applied for financing from United\\nBank. United Bank loaned Scott $2,040,000. Using the financing he had received from United\\nBank, Scott completely payed off the Construction Loan and Credit Line with First Southern in\\nearly September 2014. Scott also used the loan from United Bank to complete the renovation\\nproject.\\n\\n Even after Scott paid off his debts with First Southern, First Southern’s automated\\ncomputer system continued to report Scott’s entire prior payment history, including the fact that\\nhe had previously been delinquent on his loans. In early October 2014, Scott discovered that\\nFirst Southern had reported damaging information to the credit bureaus after Clarion Financial,\\nwhich regularly provided Plaintiffs credit to purchase dental supplies, denied Plaintiffs’ latest\\ncredit request because Plaintiffs’ credit report showed that Plaintiffs had previously been\\ndelinquent on their loans with First Southern. After Scott contacted Mason, Mason checked the\\nstatus of Scott’s loans and reported to Scott that First Southern’s system indicated that Scott was\\n“current.” (ECF No. 66-7 at PageID #548.) Mason texted Scott that “we will work to straighten\\n[the situation] out immediately.” (Id.) Scott asserts that he did not contact the credit bureaus to\\ncomplain about the reporting error because Mason had assured him that First Southern would\\ntake care of the issue.\\n\\n In October 2014, First Southern submitted amendments to the national credit reporting\\nbureaus informing them that Plaintiffs had paid off their loans with First Southern and were no\\nlonger delinquent. Mason’s assistant, Shelia Myers, emailed Scott and informed him that\\n“Equifax acknowledged receipt of our requested change” to Plaintiffs’ payment history.\\n\\f No. 18-6130 Scott, et al. v. First S. Nat’l Bank Page 7\\n\\n\\n(Myers Email, ECF No. 77-32 at PageID #1242.) Myers also stated that she had recently spoken\\nwith First Southern’s loan administrator and that he believed that Equifax’s having confirmed\\nreceipt of the amendment “should suffice in knowing the error had been corrected” and that Scott\\nshould “NOT . . . pull a credit report just to confirm the correction” because “each time a report\\nis pulled, the credit score lowers a bit.” (Id.)\\n\\n In March 2015, Plaintiffs’ lawyer sent First Southern a letter complaining about First\\nSouthern’s “erroneous reporting” to the credit bureaus and the financial and reputational damage\\nit caused Plaintiffs. The letter also alleged that First Southern deliberately provided the credit\\nbureaus with false and damaging information about Plaintiffs’ payment history in retaliation for\\nPlaintiffs financing the basketball gymnasium project through United Bank. In June 2015,\\nPlaintiffs’ lawyer sent First Southern another letter that alleged continued harms to Plaintiffs\\nbecause of First Southern’s erroneous reporting. Both letters stated that Plaintiffs were suffering\\nharms because of First Southern’s past erroneous reporting. Neither letter alleged that First\\nSouthern continued to provide inaccurate information to the credit bureaus.\\n\\n Despite First Southern’s representation in October 2014 that the reporting issue had been\\nremedied, the credit bureaus continued to report the delinquency on Plaintiffs’ credit report.\\nIn fact, First Southern had reported to TransUnion that Plaintiffs were delinquent in September,\\nOctober, and November of 2014, even though Plaintiffs had paid off the entire balance of their\\nloans in early September. On August 20, 2015, Plaintiffs’ attorney sent First Southern a letter\\nstating that Plaintiffs had received a credit report earlier that week that continued to show\\ndelinquencies from September, October, and November of 2014 based on Plaintiffs’ previous\\naccounts with First Southern. On September 11, 2015, First Southern submitted a second\\namendment to the national credit bureaus to correct the erroneous information that First Southern\\nhad previously provided stating that Plaintiffs were delinquent. First Southern’s second\\namendment notice remedied the erroneous delinquency reports; during his deposition, Scott\\nstated that any credit issue he had previously experienced because of First Southern’s inaccurate\\nreporting had been “resolved.” (Scott Dep., ECF No. 66-2 at PageID #388.)\\n\\f No. 18-6130 Scott, et al. v. First S. Nat’l Bank Page 8\\n\\n\\n B. Procedural History\\n\\n Plaintiffs filed a five-count Complaint, asserting that First Southern: violated the FCRA\\nby willfully and/or negligently failing to fully and timely investigate Plaintiffs’ complaints that\\nFirst Southern had inaccurately reported Plaintiffs’ payment history to the credit bureaus (Counts\\nI and II); beached its duty of good faith and fair dealing and tortiously interfered with Plaintiffs’\\nbusiness relationships by deliberately reporting false information to the credit bureaus in\\nretaliation for Plaintiffs’ financing the gymnasium project through United Bank (Counts III and\\nV); and made fraudulent misrepresentations that First Southern would loan Plaintiffs additional\\nfunds as necessary to complete the renovation (Count IV). First Southern moved for summary\\njudgment on all of Plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs filed a cross-motion for partial summary\\njudgment on their claim that First Southern breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing. The\\ndistrict court granted First Southern’s motion for summary judgment, denied Plaintiffs’ cross-\\nmotion for partial summary judgment, and entered judgment for First Southern. This timely\\nappeal followed.\\n\\n II. STANDARD OF REVIEW\\n\\n “[T]his Court reviews a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo.”\\nRd. Sprinkler Fitters Local Union No. 669, U.A., AFL-CIO v. Dorn Sprinkler Co., 669 F.3d 790,\\n793 (6th Cir. 2012) (citing Trs. of Resilient Floor Decorators Ins. Fund v. A & M Installations,\\nInc., 395 F.3d 244, 247–48 (6th Cir. 2005)).\\n\\n Summary judgment is proper “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to\\nany material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n56(a). “A dispute about a material fact is genuine ‘if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury\\ncould return a verdict for the non-moving party.’” Smith v. Perkins Bd. of Educ., 708 F.3d 821,\\n825 (6th Cir. 2013) (quoting Ford v. Gen. Motors Corp., 305 F.3d 545, 551 (6th Cir. 2002)).\\nWhen evaluating a motion for summary judgment, the court must “view[] [the evidence] in the\\nlight most favorable to the party opposing the motion.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v.\\nZenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (internal quotation marks omitted). Further, “all\\nreasonable inferences must be made in favor of the non-moving party.” Moran v. Al Basit LLC,\\n\\f No. 18-6130 Scott, et al. v. First S. Nat’l Bank Page 9\\n\\n\\n788 F.3d 201, 204 (6th Cir. 2015) (citing Little Caesar Enters., Inc. v. OPPCO, LLC, 219 F.3d\\n547, 551 (6th Cir. 2000)). The moving party bears the burden of showing that no genuine issues\\nof material fact exist. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324–25 (1986).\\n\\n III. DISCUSSION\\n\\n A. FCRA Claims\\n\\n Plaintiffs argue that the district court improperly granted First Southern summary\\njudgment on Plaintiffs’ FCRA claims. Plaintiffs concede that they “did not notify the credit\\nbureaus of the false reports submitted to them by [First Southern].” (Pls.’ Br. at 32.) But\\nPlaintiffs maintain that they would have notified the credit bureaus but-for Mason’s\\nrepresentation that First Southern would “take care” of the inaccurate reporting of Plaintiffs’\\npayment history and Myers’ recommendation that Plaintiffs not pull a credit report to confirm\\nthat the reporting error had been remedied. (Id. at 32–33.) Plaintiffs assert that the district court\\nviolated principles of justice and contravened the consumer-protection purposes of the FCRA by\\ngranting summary judgment to First Southern on Plaintiffs’ FCRA claims. In response, First\\nSouthern argues that Plaintiffs failed to trigger First Southern’s obligations under the FCRA\\nbecause Plaintiffs never filed a dispute with a consumer reporting agency.\\n\\n As explained below, the district court properly granted First Southern’s motion for\\nsummary judgment on Plaintiffs’ FCRA claims. Plaintiffs never notified a consumer reporting\\nagency about their dispute, a prerequisite for prevailing on their FCRA claims.\\n\\n 1. Relevant Legal Principles\\n\\n “Under the FCRA, those who furnish information to consumer reporting agencies have\\ntwo obligations: (1) to provide accurate information; and (2) to undertake an investigation upon\\nreceipt of a notice of dispute regarding credit information that is furnished.” Downs v. Clayton\\nHomes, Inc., 88 F. App’x 851, 853 (6th Cir. 2004); see 15 U.S.C. § 1681s–2. The FCRA\\n“creates a private right of action” for consumers to enforce the requirement under § 1681s–2(b)\\nthat furnishers of information investigate upon receiving notice of a dispute, but not the\\nrequirement under § 1681s–2(a) that furnishers of information initially provide accurate\\n\\f No. 18-6130 Scott, et al. v. First S. Nat’l Bank Page 10\\n\\n\\ninformation to consumer reporting agencies. Boggio v. USAA Fed. Sav. Bank, 696 F.3d 611, 615\\n(6th Cir. 2012).\\n\\n This Court has repeatedly held that consumers must file a dispute with a consumer\\nreporting agency to trigger the furnisher’s duty to investigate under § 1681s–2(b). See, e.g.,\\nMerritt v. Experian, 560 F. App’x 525, 528–29 (6th Cir. 2014) (“‘Furnishers’ of information to\\nconsumer reporting agencies do have certain responsibilities to investigate [under the FCRA]—\\nbut only after receiving a request from a consumer reporting agency to respond to a dispute.”)\\n(emphasis added); Boggio, 696 F.3d at 615–16 (holding that “consumers may step in to enforce\\ntheir rights only after a furnisher has received proper notice of a dispute from a [credit reporting\\nagency]”) (emphasis added); Brown v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 507 F. App’x 543, 547 (6th Cir.\\n2012) (“A private cause of action against a furnisher of information does not arise until a\\nconsumer reporting agency provides proper notice of a dispute.”); see also Downs, 88 F. App’x\\nat 853–54 (explaining that to implicate § 1681s–2(b)’s duty that a furnisher of information\\nconduct an investigation “the plaintiff must show that the furnisher received notice from a\\nconsumer reporting agency.”).\\n\\n A consumer’s complaining directly to a furnisher of information about a purported error\\nin the information the furnisher supplied to a consumer reporting agency does not trigger the\\nfurnisher’s duty to investigate under the FCRA. See, e.g., Brown, 507 F. App’x at 547 (“Directly\\ncontacting the furnisher of credit information does not actuate the furnisher’s obligation to\\ninvestigate a complaint.”) (citing Nelson v. Chase Manhattan Mortg. Corp., 282 F.3d 1057, 1060\\n(9th Cir. 2002)); Downs, 88 F. App’x at 853–54 (explaining that “the plaintiff must show that the\\nfurnisher received notice from a consumer reporting agency, not the plaintiff, that the credit\\ninformation is disputed”).\\n\\n 2. Application to the Matter at Hand\\n\\n The district court correctly granted summary judgment to First Southern on Plaintiffs’\\nFCRA claims. Because Plaintiffs never filed a dispute with a consumer reporting agency, First\\nSouthern’s duty to investigate under § 1681s–2(b) was never activated. See, e.g., Merritt, 560 F.\\nApp’x at 528–29; Boggio, 696 F.3d at 615–16; Brown, 507 F. App’x at 547; Downs, 88 F. App’x\\n\\f No. 18-6130 Scott, et al. v. First S. Nat’l Bank Page 11\\n\\n\\nat 853–54. Plaintiffs’ notifying First Southern directly about the errors in the information that\\nFirst Southern had furnished to the consumer reporting agencies failed to trigger First Southern’s\\nduty to investigate. See, e.g., Brown, 507 F. App’x at 547 (citing Nelson, 282 F.3d at 1060);\\nDowns, 88 F. App’x at 853–54. Therefore, the district court properly granted summary judgment\\nin favor of First Southern on Plaintiffs’ FCRA claims.\\n\\n Plaintiffs do not assert any legal arguments for why the district court erred by dismissing\\ntheir FCRA claims. Rather, Plaintiffs rely exclusively on a policy argument. Plaintiffs contend\\nthat by dismissing their FCRA claims despite Mason’s representation that First Southern would\\nremedy the problem with Plaintiffs’ payment history and Myers’ admonition that Plaintiffs’ not\\ngenerate a credit report to confirm that the problem had been remedied, the district court allowed\\nFirst Southern to “have its cake and eat it too,” in contravention of the pro-consumer purposes of\\nthe FCRA. (Pls.’ Br. at 33.) Plaintiffs fail to appreciate that the FCRA protects both consumers\\nand furnishers. For instance, this Court has explained that while the FCRA “provides consumers\\nwith a private remedy against negligent or willful misconduct by a furnisher . . . it\\nsimultaneously protects furnishers from answering frivolous consumer disputes.” Boggio,\\n696 F.3d at 616; see also Nelson, 282 F.3d at 1060 (describing the FCRA’s reporting\\nrequirement as “a filtering mechanism” that protects furnishers of information from frivolous\\nconsumer complaints). One way that the FCRA protects furnishers is by requiring that a\\nconsumer file a dispute with a consumer reporting agency, and that the consumer reporting\\nagency screen the complaint and provide notice of the dispute to a furnisher if warranted, before\\nthe consumer may assert a private right of action against the furnisher. See Boggio, 696 F.3d at\\n614–16. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ argument is unpersuasive.2\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 2Plaintiffs’ most promising avenue to attempt to avoid application of the FCRA’s notice requirement may\\nhave been through the doctrine of equitable estoppel. This Circuit has held that equitable estoppel can bar a\\ndefendant from raising an affirmative defense, see E.E.O.C. v. Kentucky State Police Dep’t, 80 F.3d 1086, 1095 (6th\\nCir. 1996), and, in some instances, from contesting an element of a plaintiff’s claim, see Thomas v. Miller, 489 F.3d\\n293, 302 (6th Cir. 2007). This Circuit has never decided whether equitable estoppel could prevent a defendant from\\nasserting that a plaintiff failed to satisfy the FCRA’s notice requirement.\\n Because Plaintiffs never raised an equitable estoppel argument, we do not decide at present whether, in\\nappropriate circumstances and if properly raised, a furnisher of consumer credit information could be equitably\\nestopped from arguing that the plaintiff failed to file a dispute with a consumer reporting agency.\\n\\f No. 18-6130 Scott, et al. v. First S. Nat’l Bank Page 12\\n\\n\\n 3. Summary\\n\\n We find that the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of First\\nSouthern on Plaintiffs’ FCRA claims.\\n\\n B. Claims for Breach of the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing and Tortious\\n Interference with Contractual Relationships\\n\\n Plaintiffs assert that the district court erroneously held that the FCRA preempts state\\ncommon law claims. Plaintiffs further assert that the district court improperly dismissed\\nPlaintiffs’ claims for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing and tortious interference\\nwith contractual relationships because First Southern deliberately harmed Plaintiffs’ credit score\\nby not extending the maturity date on the LOC and by allowing its computer system to send false\\ndelinquency notices to the credit bureaus. In response, First Southern argues that the district\\ncourt correctly held that the FCRA preempts state common law claims that concern a furnisher’s\\ntransmission of information to consumer reporting agencies. First Southern asserts that because\\nPlaintiffs’ claims arise from First Southern’s reporting obligations, the district court properly\\ndismissed Plaintiffs’ claims as preempted by the FCRA.\\n\\n As explained below, the district court correctly concluded that the FCRA preempts state\\ncommon law claims involving a furnisher’s reporting of information to consumer reporting\\nagencies. Further, the district court correctly found that the FCRA preempts Plaintiffs’ claims of\\nbreach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing and tortious interference with contractual\\nrelationships because these claims relate to First Southern’s reporting obligations.\\n\\n 1. Relevant Legal Principles\\n\\n The FCRA provides that “[n]o requirement or prohibition may be imposed under the laws\\nof any State . . . with respect to any subject matter regulated under . . . section 1681s-2 of this\\ntitle, relating to the responsibilities of persons who furnish information to consumer reporting\\nagencies[.]” 15 U.S.C. § 1681t(b)(1)(F). This Court has held that the FCRA preempts state\\ncommon law claims. Ellen Sparks v. Countrywide Homes Loans, Inc., et al., No. 15-6330, slip\\nop. at 3 (6th Cir. Sep. 2, 2016) (per curiam) (holding that the FCRA preempted the plaintiff’s\\ncommon law negligence claim arising from the defendants’ furnishing of information to credit\\n\\f No. 18-6130 Scott, et al. v. First S. Nat’l Bank Page 13\\n\\n\\nreporting agencies); see also Lloyd v. Midland Funding, LLC, 639 F. App’x 301, 307 (6th Cir.\\n2016) (explaining that the FCRA would preempt plaintiffs’ common law claims if said claims\\n“rel[ied] on the proposition that [the defendant] was a furnisher of information” under the\\nFCRA). The other Courts of Appeals that have addressed whether the FCRA preempts state\\ncommon law claims have also answered the question in the affirmative. See, e.g., Macpherson v.\\nJPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 665 F.3d 45, 47–48 (2d Cir. 2011); Purcell v. Bank of Am.,\\n659 F.3d 622, 625–26 (7th Cir. 2011).\\n\\n 2. Application to the Matter at Hand\\n\\n The district court correctly held that the FCRA preempts Plaintiffs’ common law claims\\nof breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing and tortious interference with contractual\\nrelationships. Plaintiffs’ common law claims arise from First Southern’s reporting incorrect\\ninformation to the credit bureaus. Because these common law claims concern the same “subject\\nmatter regulated under . . . section 1681s-2 of [the FCRA],” see § 1681t(b)(1)(F), they are\\npreempted by the FCRA. See Sparks, No. 15-6330, slip op. at 3; Macpherson, 665 F.3d at 47–\\n48; Purcell, 659 F.3d at 625–26; see also Lloyd, 639 F. App’x at 307. The fact that Plaintiffs’\\nclaims arise under state common law, rather than state statutory law, does not save them from\\npreemption.\\n\\n Plaintiffs rely on a district court case from the Western District of Kentucky to argue that\\nthe FCRA preempts only state statutory claims. See Miller v. Wells Fargo & Co., No. 3:05-CV-\\n42-S, 2008 WL 793676, at *8 (W.D. Ky. Mar. 24, 2008). The district court in Miller perceived a\\n“tension” between § 1681t(b)(1)(F) and § 1681h(e), the FCRA’s two preemption provisions,\\nbecause § 1681h(e) “preempts state law claims for defamation, invasion of privacy, and\\nnegligence, to the extent that the plaintiff cannot prove the defendant acted with malice or willful\\nintent to injure” while § 1681t(b)(1)(F), enacted twenty-six years later, “prohibits all state claims\\nagainst furnishers.” Id. at *7 (emphasis added). The Miller court believed that reconciling this\\ntension required adopting what some district courts have referred to as the “statutory approach,”\\nthat is, holding that the FCRA preempts state statutory claims but not state common law claims.\\nId. a *10.\\n\\f No. 18-6130 Scott, et al. v. First S. Nat’l Bank Page 14\\n\\n\\n While a handful of district courts have followed the “statutory approach,” the two Courts\\nof Appeals that have addressed the issue both explicitly rejected the “statutory approach” and\\nheld that the FCRA preempts state common law claims. In Purcell, 659 F.3d 622, the Seventh\\nCircuit explained why § 1681t(b)(1)(F) and § 1681h(e) are not in conflict,\\n\\n Unlike these judges, we do not perceive any inconsistency between the two\\n statutes. Section 1681h(e) preempts some state claims that could arise out of\\n reports to credit agencies; § 1681t(b)(1)(F) preempts more of these claims.\\n Section 1681h(e) does not create a right to recover for wilfully false reports; it just\\n says that a particular paragraph does not preempt claims of that stripe. Section\\n 1681h(e) was enacted in 1970. Twenty-six years later, in 1996, Congress added\\n § 1681t(b)(1)(F) to the United States Code. The same legislation also added\\n § 1681s–2. The extra federal remedy in § 1681s–2 was accompanied by extra\\n preemption in § 1681t(b)(1)(F), in order to implement the new plan under which\\n reporting to credit agencies would be supervised by state and federal\\n administrative agencies rather than judges. Reading the earlier statute,\\n § 1681h(e), to defeat the later-enacted system in § 1681s–2 and § 1681t(b)(1)(F),\\n would contradict fundamental norms of statutory interpretation.\\n Our point is not that § 1681t(b)(1)(F) repeals § 1681h(e) by implication. It is that\\n the statutes are compatible: the first-enacted statute preempts some state\\n regulation of reports to credit agencies, and the second-enacted statute preempts\\n more. There is no more conflict between these laws than there would be between\\n a 1970 statute setting a speed limit of 60 for all roads in national parks and a 1996\\n statute setting a speed limit of 55. It is easy to comply with both: don’t drive\\n more than 55 miles per hour. Just as the later statute lowers the speed limit\\n without repealing the first (which means that, if the second statute should be\\n repealed, the speed limit would rise to 60 rather than vanishing), so\\n § 1681t(b)(1)(F) reduces the scope of state regulation without repealing any other\\n law. This understanding does not vitiate the final words of § 1681h(e), because\\n there are exceptions to § 1681t(b)(1)(F). When it drops out, § 1681h(e) remains.\\n But, even if our understanding creates some surplusage, courts must do what is\\n essential if the more recent enactment is to operate as designed.\\n\\nPurcell, 659 F.3d at 625. In a decision issued shortly after Purcell, the Second Circuit followed\\nthe Seventh Circuit’s conclusion that “§ 1681h(e) is compatible with § 1681t(b)(1)(F)” and held\\nthat state common law claims “are preempted by the plain language of § 1681t(b)(1)(F).”\\nMacpherson, 665 F.3d at 48 (explaining that “the operative language in § 1681h(e) provides only\\nthat the provision does not preempt a certain narrow class of state law claims; it does not prevent\\nthe later-enacted § 1681t(b)(1)(F) from accomplishing a more broadly-sweeping preemption.”)\\n\\f No. 18-6130 Scott, et al. v. First S. Nat’l Bank Page 15\\n\\n\\n We follow the prior decisions from this Circuit and the other Courts of Appeals that have\\ndecided the issue and hold that the FCRA preempts both state statutory and state common law\\nclaims. As the Second Circuit held in Macpherson, the plain language of § 1681t(b)(1)(F)\\npreempts all state “laws” without distinguishing between state statutory law and state common\\nlaw. See Bates v. Dura Auto. Sys., Inc., 625 F.3d 283, 285 (6th Cir. 2010) (“When we can\\ndiscern an unambiguous and plain meaning from the language of a statute, our task is at an\\nend.”) (quoting Bartlik v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 62 F.3d 163, 166 (6th Cir. 1995) (internal\\nquotation marks omitted)). Based on its plain language, § 1681t(b)(1)(F) preempts state\\ncommon law claims.3\\n\\n Like the Seventh Circuit in Purcell and the Second Circuit in Macpherson, we conclude\\nthat the FCRA’s preemption provisions are not in conflict. Congress implemented § 1681h(e) as\\npart of the first iteration of the FCRA. When Congress amended the FCRA in 1996, Congress\\ndecided to impose additional duties on furnishers (as codified in § 1681s–2) and, as part of the\\nmodified statutory scheme, also decided to preempt additional state law claims (through\\n§ 1681t(b)(1)(F)). There is nothing remarkable about Congress changing the scope of federal\\npreemption of state law when it refines a previously-enacted statutory scheme. See, e.g.,\\nCipollone v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 505 U.S. 504, 520 (1992) (describing the preemption provision in\\nthe Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act of 1969 (“PHCSA”) as “much broader” than the\\npreemption provision in the 1965 version of the PHCSA). Further, as the Seventh Circuit\\nexplained in Purcell, “courts do not read old statutes to defeat the operation of newer ones.”\\nPurcell, 659 F.3d at 626. But accepting Plaintiffs’ argument that the FCRA’s original\\npreemption provision, § 1681h(e), preserved state law claims governed by the plain language of\\nthe later-enacted preemption provision, § 1681t(b)(1)(F), “would defeat the 1996 decision [by\\nCongress] that administrative action rather than litigation is the right way to deal with false\\nreports to credit agencies.” Id.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 3Plaintiffsdo not develop a textual argument that the word “laws” in § 1681t(b)(1)(F) refers only to state\\nstatutory laws as opposed to state common law. But the Seventh Circuit persuasively rejected this argument in\\nPurcell, holding that the word “laws” in § 1681t(b)(1)(F) applies to “all sources of legal rules” including “judicial\\ndecisions.” 659 F.3d at 624 (citing Premium Mortg. Corp. v. Equifax, Inc., 583 F.3d 103, 106–07 (2d Cir. 2009)).\\n\\f No. 18-6130 Scott, et al. v. First S. Nat’l Bank Page 16\\n\\n\\n The Supreme Court’s decision in Cipollone further diminishes Plaintiffs’ argument that\\nthis Court should adopt the “statutory approach” to the scope of preemption under the FCRA. In\\nCipollone, the Supreme Court held that by precluding “requirement[s] or\\nprohibition[s] . . . imposed under State law,” the PHCSA preempted state common law actions.\\n505 U.S. at 522–24. The relevant language in § 1681t(b)(1)(F) is nearly analogous to the\\nlanguage from the PHCSA at issue in Cipollone. And, like the PHCSA’s preemption provision,\\n§ 1681t(b)(1)(F) preempts state common law claims.\\n\\n 3. Summary\\n\\n The FCRA preempts state common law causes of action concerning a furnisher’s\\nreporting of consumer credit information to consumer reporting agencies. Plaintiffs’ claims for\\nbreach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing and tortious interference with contractual\\nrelationships concern First Southern’s reporting of Plaintiffs’ credit information to consumer\\nreporting agencies. Therefore, the district court correctly concluded that the FCRA preempts\\nPlaintiffs’ claims for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing and tortious interference\\nwith contractual relationships.\\n\\n C. Fraudulent Misrepresentation Claim\\n\\n As an initial matter, we note that the FCRA does not preempt Plaintiffs’ fraudulent\\nmisrepresentation claim. Plaintiffs assert that First Southern fraudulently represented to\\nPlaintiffs that First Southern would loan additional funds to Plaintiffs as necessary to complete\\nthe renovation. Because Plaintiffs’ fraudulent misrepresentation claim does not arise from First\\nSouthern’s reporting obligations as a furnisher of consumer credit information, the FCRA does\\nnot preempt this claim. See § 1681t(b)(1)(F).\\n\\n As explained below, Plaintiffs forfeited this issue on appeal because they failed to discuss\\nthe district court’s reasoning for granting First Southern’s motion for summary judgment on their\\nfraudulent misrepresentation claim.\\n\\f No. 18-6130 Scott, et al. v. First S. Nat’l Bank Page 17\\n\\n\\n 1. Relevant Legal Principles\\n\\n In this Circuit, an appellant forfeits an argument that he fails to raise in his opening brief.\\nSee, e.g., In re Isaacs, 895 F.3d 904, 917 (6th Cir. 2018) (citing Marks v. Newcourt Credit\\nGroup, Inc., 342 F.3d 444, 462 (6th Cir. 2003)). Further, “where a plaintiff fails to address the\\ndistrict court’s reasoning in disposing of a claim on summary judgment or motion to dismiss, we\\nhave deemed the claim forfeited.” Rees v. W.M. Barr & Co., Inc., 736 F. App’x 119, 124–25\\n(6th Cir. 2018) (collecting cases); see also Grosswiler v. Freudenberg-Nok Sealing Techs.,\\n642 F. App’x 596, 599 (6th Cir. 2016) (holding that plaintiffs abandoned their claim on appeal\\nbecause they did not “challenge or even mention” one of the district court’s bases for granting\\nsummary judgment).\\n\\n 2. Application to the Matter at Hand\\n\\n Plaintiffs have forfeited their appeal of the district court’s dismissal of their fraudulent\\nmisrepresentation claim. The district court held that Plaintiffs’ fraudulent misrepresentation\\nclaim was barred by Kentucky’s statute of frauds, K.R.S. § 371.010. Because the district court\\ndismissed the claim under Kentucky’s statute of frauds, it did not reach the merits of Plaintiffs’\\nfraudulent misrepresentation claim. However, in their briefing before this Court, Plaintiffs do\\nnot address the district court’s reasoning. Instead of arguing that the district court erred by\\nfinding that Kentucky’s statue of frauds barred their fraudulent misrepresentation claim,\\nPlaintiffs argue exclusively that the district court improperly dismissed this claim on the merits.\\nBecause Plaintiffs have failed to provide any argumentation concerning the district court’s\\nreasoning for dismissing their fraudulent misrepresentation claim, Plaintiffs have forfeited any\\nchallenge to the district court’s disposition of this claim. See, e.g., Radvansky v. City of Olmsted\\nFalls, 395 F.3d 291, 311 (6th Cir. 2005); Rees, 736 F. App’x at 124.\\n\\n IV. CONCLUSION\\n\\n For the above-stated reasons, we AFFIRM the district court.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3762,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4657308,"string":"4,657,308"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Heather Baker v. City of Trenton"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-08-29"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-2181"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before: SUTTON, BUSH, and LARSEN, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0221p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n HEATHER BAKER, Personal Representative of the ┐\\n Estate of Kyle Baker, Deceased, │\\n Plaintiff-Appellant, │\\n > No. 18-2181\\n │\\n v. │\\n │\\n │\\n CITY OF TRENTON; MARK DRISCOLL; STEVE LYONS; │\\n AARON BINIARZ; STEVE ARNOCZKI, │\\n Defendants-Appellees. │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.\\n No. 2:16-cv-12280—Marianne O. Battani, District Judge.\\n\\n Argued: June 25, 2019\\n\\n Decided and Filed: August 29, 2019\\n\\n Before: SUTTON, BUSH, and LARSEN, Circuit Judges.\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nARGUED: Mark R. Bendure, BENDURE & THOMAS, PLC, Grosse Pointe Park, Michigan,\\nfor Appellant. Courtney A. Jones, KALLAS & HENK, PC, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, for\\nAppellees. ON BRIEF: Mark R. Bendure, BENDURE & THOMAS, PLC, Grosse Pointe Park,\\nMichigan, for Appellant. Courtney A. Jones, KALLAS & HENK, PC, Bloomfield Hills,\\nMichigan, for Appellees.\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge. This case involves a tragedy of good intentions. Shortly\\nbefore his high school graduation, eighteen-year-old Kyle Baker apparently experimented with\\n\\f No. 18-2181 Baker v. City of Trenton, et al. Page 2\\n\\n\\nLSD. The after-effects of the drug afflicted him for several days, resulting in his having to be\\nremoved from class because of behavioral issues. Kyle’s friend, Collin Mathieu, checked in on\\nhim after school to see if everything was all right. It was not. Collin went to the police and told\\nthem that Kyle needed help and that Kyle was armed and upset with his mother. The police\\ndispatcher sent four officers to the house; lost in the communication, however, was that the\\nmother was not actually home with Kyle. Without waiting for a warrant, the officers entered\\nKyle’s home. He appeared at the foot of the basement stairs, wielding a lawnmower blade.\\nWhen the officers attempted to subdue Kyle with a taser, he came up the basement stairs\\nswinging. The lawnmower blade struck an officer, who fell back on some stairs or a landing in\\nfront of Kyle. The officer then shot and killed the young man.\\n\\n Kyle’s mother, Heather Baker, sued the individual officers and their employer, the City\\nof Trenton, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of the Fourth Amendment guarantee\\nagainst unreasonable searches and seizures, as incorporated against the States by the Fourteenth\\nAmendment. After discovery, the district court granted summary judgment to the defendants,\\nholding that the officers had not committed any such Fourth Amendment violation (and finding\\nin the alternative that the officers had qualified immunity) and that the City could not be liable in\\nthe absence of any constitutional violation. Ms. Baker now appeals this determination.\\n\\n This case is heart-rending, and we have deep sympathy for Kyle’s family and friends.\\nNonetheless, given the circumstances and governing case law, we hold that the officers’ entry\\ninto Kyle’s home and use of force did not violate the Fourth Amendment, and therefore we\\nAFFIRM the decision of the district court.\\n\\n I. BACKGROUND1\\n\\n In May of 2015, Kyle Baker was set to graduate from Trenton High School in June. His\\nparents, Heather and Tim Baker, were divorced, and Kyle split time between their houses,\\ntypically spending weeknights with his father and stepmother and weekends with his mother.\\n\\n\\n 1This is a fact-intensive case, with many points of dispute between the parties. Because this case was\\ndecided on a motion for summary judgment, we construe the facts in the light most favorable to Ms. Baker, the non-\\nmoving party. See Smith Wholesale Co. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 477 F.3d 854, 861 (6th Cir. 2007).\\n\\f No. 18-2181 Baker v. City of Trenton, et al. Page 3\\n\\n\\nSometime in mid- to late-May, Kyle participated in “senior skip day,” the traditional day for\\nseniors to cut class. Apparently, on this occasion, Kyle decided to try LSD.\\n\\n About one week after, on May 28, Kyle was acting oddly at school. The parties agree\\nthat his strange behavior may have been caused by after-effects of the LSD. Kyle stared out the\\nwindow and attempted to shield his eyes from the sun, although the sky was overcast that day.\\nAlso, he could not hold an intelligible conversation, instead merely repeating whatever was said\\nto him. As a result, Kyle was sent to the principal’s office. There, Kyle continued to behave\\npeculiarly. For example, he said something to the effect that he was lying down, despite the fact\\nthat he was standing up. Suspicious that Kyle might be under the influence of drugs, the\\nprincipal (Dr. Michael Doyle) called the police. In response, Officer Jake Davis of the Trenton\\nPolice Department visited the school and observed Kyle.\\n\\n Davis reported that Kyle was unresponsive to verbal communication. The officer also\\nvoiced suspicion that Kyle was under the influence of an intoxicant and asked to speak with Dr.\\nDoyle privately to determine the proper course of action. While they were in another room, Kyle\\nwas left alone, and he used that opportunity to leave the school. He did not return.\\n\\n When Collin Mathieu, a friend of Kyle’s, learned what had happened, he texted Kyle’s\\nmother to let her know. Additionally, Dr. Doyle called Ms. Baker, as well as separately called\\nMr. Baker, to advise each of the situation. Ms. Baker reacted by calling Kyle’s cell phone, but\\nshe initially was not able to reach him. Mr. Baker did reach Kyle, and he instructed his son to go\\nhome and remain there. At some point later in the afternoon, Kyle also answered one of his\\nmother’s phone calls. He told her that he did not know why Dr. Doyle had called the police, and\\ndid not tell his mother where he was. Alarmed by this call, Ms. Baker tried several more times to\\nreach Kyle, but to no avail. She then texted Collin that she was worried about Kyle.\\n\\n After school, Collin went looking for his friend. He first tried Mr. Baker’s house, but\\nKyle was not there. Collin next checked a local park, but Kyle was not there either. Collin then\\nreturned to Mr. Baker’s house, where he finally found his friend alone in the basement. Collin\\ntook out his cell phone and showed Kyle the text messages from Ms. Baker. Collin then called\\nMs. Baker, handing his cell phone to Kyle so that he could speak with his mother. The two\\n\\f No. 18-2181 Baker v. City of Trenton, et al. Page 4\\n\\n\\ntalked briefly, after which Kyle refused to return the cell phone to Collin. Instead, according to\\nCollin, Kyle showed him a pocket knife, though Kyle did not unfold the blade.\\n\\n After this encounter with Kyle, Collin decided to contact the police. Because Kyle had\\nCollin’s phone and would not return it, Collin did not call 911 but instead went to the police\\nstation in person to ask for help. There, Collin described to Kelsey Pare, a police dispatcher,\\nwhat had transpired. Collin told Pare about Kyle’s call with his mother, but (again according to\\nCollin’s account) he did not tell the dispatcher that Ms. Baker was present in the home with Kyle\\nor that Kyle had made threatening remarks toward her. Pare has a different recollection of what\\nCollin told her, and she testified that her dispatch accurately reflected what she had been told.\\nPare put out the following dispatch:\\n\\n We have a teenage male in the lobby here, states that a teenager there named Kyle\\n Baker left school today. When he went to go check on him he states that he had a\\n knife in his home. He was threatening towards his mother. He also stole his cell\\n phone. He left after he pulled the knife out. As far as he knows he’s still at the\\n residence. We also have word he possibly may have purchased a shotgun last\\n week. Try and make contact on the house phone but its [sic] just going busy.\\n\\nR. 25, PageID 489.\\n\\n Officers Driscoll, Arnoczki, Lyons, and Biniarz responded to the dispatch. After the\\nofficers reached Mr. Baker’s house but before they entered, Pare communicated further details to\\nthem:\\n\\n Caller came into station to report that he went to check on a friend that had left\\n school today and when he did, his friend (Kyle Christian Baker, 18 yo w m) was\\n threatening and yelling at his mother. He tried to talk to him and pulled a knife\\n out and took his cell phone. The subj[ect] then went upstairs; The caller left after\\n the subj[ect] went upstairs and came to the [station]; Sgt. Cheplick made several\\n attempts to contact the house phone, busy line[.] Attempted to make contact by\\n cell as well. No answer.2\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 2In this dispatch, Pare referred to Collin as “caller.” There is no evidence in the record, however, that\\nCollin ever “called” the police station; rather, the record is clear that Collin made his report in person.\\n\\f No. 18-2181 Baker v. City of Trenton, et al. Page 5\\n\\n\\nR. 25-4, PageID 715. Based on this message, the officers testified that they believed that Kyle,\\narmed with a knife or a shotgun, or both, was holding his mother hostage.3\\n\\n Driscoll knocked on the front door of the house, but there was no response. Arnoczki\\nwent around the back and found a door unlocked. He let himself in, followed by Driscoll and\\nLyons, while Biniarz stayed at the front door. Once inside, the three officers loudly announced\\ntheir presence as the Trenton police and called out asking if anyone was home. Kyle responded\\nfrom the basement by shouting obscenities at the police and demanding that they leave. Biniarz\\nthen went around to the back of the house, entering to join his colleagues. Two officers swept\\nthe house (save for the basement) but found neither Ms. Baker nor any weapon. The officers\\nthen positioned themselves at the top of the basement stairs. They tried to engage in dialogue\\nwith Kyle, who was at the foot of the stairs. The officers asked Kyle where his mother was. Kyle\\nresponded that he did not know. The officers noticed that Kyle was holding a lawnmower blade.\\nThey asked him to come upstairs, but he refused. The four officers would not budge from their\\npositions either. After several minutes of this standoff, Kyle finally decided to take a couple of\\nsteps up the basement stairs. At that point, Lyons and Biniarz tasered him with projectile tasers\\nfrom the top of the stairs. With Kyle seemingly stunned, Driscoll then started down the stairs to\\nsubdue him.\\n\\n As Driscoll descended, however, Kyle stood back up and resumed heading up the stairs.\\nBiniarz, Arnoczki, and Lyons backed off the stairs and into the upstairs kitchen, but Driscoll was\\nunable to fully retreat. He lost his footing and fell into a seated or semi-seated position on some\\nstairs or on a landing near the top of the staircase. From his position, Driscoll saw that Kyle was\\nstill moving up the stairs with the lawnmower blade in his hand, swinging it erratically.\\nAs Driscoll remained pinned on the stairs or the landing, Kyle struck him once with the\\nlawnmower blade, producing a cut wound that required stitches. At that point, the officer shot\\nhis assailant once. According to Driscoll, he fired upward at Kyle, who stood over him. But,\\naccording to forensic evidence relied upon by Ms. Baker (which we must credit for purposes of\\n\\n 3Officer Cheplick was working dispatch alongside Pare. Cheplick called Mr. Baker to let him know that\\npolice were at his house checking on Kyle and Ms. Baker. Mr. Baker told Cheplick that he did not believe that Ms.\\nBaker was at the house. This conversation, however, occurred after the responding officers had already entered Mr.\\nBaker’s house.\\n\\f No. 18-2181 Baker v. City of Trenton, et al. Page 6\\n\\n\\nsummary judgment), Driscoll fired downward at Kyle, who at the time of the shot was seven feet\\naway from the officer. The bullet passed through Kyle’s abdomen, inflicting injuries that\\nultimately proved fatal. After Kyle was shot, Lyons went down into the basement and\\nhandcuffed him.\\n\\n Kyle was then taken to the hospital, where he died from the gunshot wound. Only after\\nDriscoll shot Kyle were the officers able to safely enter the basement and ascertain that Ms.\\nBaker was not present. Although Kyle’s shotgun was ultimately located under his bed, the\\nrecord does not indicate whether or where Kyle’s pocket knife was found.\\n\\n In the aftermath of the shooting, the Michigan State Police and the Trenton Police\\nDepartment investigated the incident, and both determined that the shooting was done in self-\\ndefense. The district court determined that the officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment in\\neither their entry of the house or the shooting. Because it found that the officers had not\\ncommitted any constitutional violation, the district court also held that there was no basis for\\nfinding the City liable. Accordingly, the district court granted the motion for summary\\njudgment. Baker timely appealed.\\n\\n II. DISCUSSION\\n\\n We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Maben v. Thelen,\\n887 F.3d 252, 258 (6th Cir. 2018). Summary judgment is appropriate where “there is no genuine\\ndispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.\\nR. Civ. P. 56(a). A fact is material if it “might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing\\nlaw.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Because a motion for\\nsummary judgment “necessarily implicates the substantive evidentiary standard of proof that\\nwould apply at the trial,” we must determine “whether reasonable jurors could find by a\\npreponderance of the evidence that the [non-moving party] is entitled to a verdict.” Id. at 252.\\nOnce the moving party has met the initial burden of showing the absence of a genuine dispute of\\nmaterial fact, the non-moving party must then “come forward with specific facts showing that\\nthere is a genuine issue for trial.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,\\n475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (citation omitted) (emphasis removed). The non-moving party must\\n\\f No. 18-2181 Baker v. City of Trenton, et al. Page 7\\n\\n\\n“do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Id. at\\n586. “The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiff’s position will be\\ninsufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff.”\\nAnderson, 477 U.S. at 252. However, in considering the evidence in the record, the court must\\nview the evidence “in a light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, giving that party\\nthe benefit of all reasonable inferences.” Smith Wholesale Co. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,\\n477 F.3d 854, 861 (6th Cir. 2007).\\n\\n Ms. Baker has three Fourth Amendment claims: 1) that the officers violated Kyle’s\\nconstitutional rights when they entered the home without a warrant, 2) that Driscoll violated\\nKyle’s constitutional rights when he shot Kyle, and 3) that the City of Trenton violated Kyle’s\\nconstitutional rights by failing to properly train and discipline its police officers. 4 As explained\\nbelow, Appellees were properly granted summary judgment as to each of these claims.\\n\\n A. Warrantless Entry\\n\\n “It is a ‘basic principle of Fourth Amendment law’ that searches and seizures inside a\\nhome without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable.” Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573,\\n585 (1980) (quotation omitted). “[T]he physical entry of the home is the chief evil against which\\nthe wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed.” Id. (quoting United States v. U.S. Dist.\\nCourt, 407 U.S. 297, 313 (1972)). Because the officers in this case entered the home without a\\nwarrant and without permission, their entry was unlawful unless it falls into an exception to this\\ngeneral rule. We conclude that the officers’ entry was justified under the exigent-circumstances\\nexception.5\\n\\n “Exigent circumstances are situations where real[,] immediate[,] and serious\\nconsequences will certainly occur if the police officer postpones action to obtain a warrant.”\\n\\n 4Initially,\\n Ms. Baker also claimed that the officers violated Kyle’s Fifth Amendment rights by refusing to\\nleave the home when Kyle refused to speak with them. However, she has abandoned this claim and we will not\\nconsider it.\\n 5Because we find that exigent circumstances justified the officers’ entry, we do not address Appellees’\\nsecond argued basis for the warrantless entry—the community caretaker exception, which applies when officers are\\nnot engaged in “traditional law enforcement functions.” See United States v. Rohrig, 98 F.3d 1506, 1521 (6th Cir.\\n1996).\\n\\f No. 18-2181 Baker v. City of Trenton, et al. Page 8\\n\\n\\nThacker v. City of Columbus, 328 F.3d 244, 253 (6th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks and\\ncitations omitted). There are four recognized situations where exigent circumstances allow a\\nwarrantless entry: “(1) hot pursuit of a fleeing felon, (2) imminent destruction of evidence,\\n(3) the need to prevent a suspect’s escape, and (4) a risk of danger to the police or others.”\\nUnited States v. Rohrig, 98 F.3d 1506, 1515 (6th Cir. 1996). Baker argues that the first three\\ncircumstances do not apply here. Kyle was not a fleeing felon, no one believed him to be in the\\nprocess of destroying evidence, and he was not a suspect attempting escape. Appellees do not\\ndispute these points. Thus, our analysis focuses on the risk of danger.\\n\\n “Under the exigent circumstances exception concerning the threat of violence to officers\\nor others, police officers ‘may enter a home without a warrant to render emergency assistance to\\nan injured occupant or to protect an occupant from imminent injury.’” Goodwin v. City of\\nPainesville, 781 F.3d 314, 332 (6th Cir. 2015) (quoting Schreiber v. Moe, 596 F.3d 323, 329–30\\n(6th Cir. 2010)). We use an objective test to analyze the circumstances that gave rise to a\\nwarrantless entry: “An action is ‘reasonable’ under the Fourth Amendment, regardless of the\\nindividual officer’s state of mind, ‘as long as the circumstances, viewed objectively, justify [the]\\naction.’” Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 404 (2006) (quoting Scott v. United States, 436\\nU.S. 128, 138 (1978)). As applied to the danger-to-police-or-others exception, a lawful\\nwarrantless entry requires “an objectively reasonable basis for believing . . . that a person within\\nthe house is in need of immediate aid.” Goodwin, 781 F.3d at 332 (quoting Michigan v. Fisher,\\n558 U.S. 45, 47 (2009)). More specifically, this standard requires us to determine whether “a\\nreasonable person [would] believe that the entry was necessary to prevent physical harm to the\\nofficers or other persons.” Brigham City, 547 U.S. at 402 (citation omitted) (alteration in\\noriginal).\\n\\n The facts here indicate that a reasonable person in the officers’ position would indeed\\nbelieve that entry was necessary to prevent physical harm. The reasonableness standard of the\\nFourth Amendment requires us to examine the officers’ actions in response to the information\\nthey had been given. When those officers arrived at the house, they had only the information\\nthey received from the dispatcher. Based on that information, they could have reasonably\\nbelieved that Ms. Baker was inside with Kyle, that he was armed in some fashion, with the knife\\n\\f No. 18-2181 Baker v. City of Trenton, et al. Page 9\\n\\n\\nor the shotgun, or both, and that he was threatening her. We have previously considered similar\\ncases.\\n\\n In Schreiber v. Moe, 596 F.3d 323 (6th Cir. 2010), we considered the case of a police\\nofficer, William Moe, who entered a home without a warrant in response to a dispatch message\\nfrom the police station. In that case, an anonymous 911 caller6 reported a case of domestic abuse\\nin the home of James Warren Schreiber. Id. at 326. The message was relayed to Moe (via a\\nmessage sent to his in-car computer, id. at 326 n.1) and indicated that there was “a risk of\\nphysical harm to a person at the scene.” Id. at 326. There was a dispute over what Moe\\nobserved when he arrived at the home—Moe testified that he saw both Schreiber and Schreiber’s\\nteenage daughter Sarah, who was the alleged victim of domestic abuse, whereas Schreiber\\ntestified that the only person that Moe could have seen was Schreiber himself. Id. In any event,\\nMoe entered Schreiber’s home without a warrant and against Schreiber’s wishes, and a physical\\naltercation between the two ensued. Schreiber subsequently sued Moe under § 1983 for\\nexcessive force and warrantless entry. Id. at 328.\\n\\n Moe argued that exigent circumstances justified his entry into the home, and we agreed.\\nEven if Schreiber was correct on the disputed factual point—that is, even if Moe could see only\\nSchreiber, and not Sarah—“Moe’s inability to see Sarah would have made it reasonable for him\\nto investigate so that he could confirm that Sarah was okay.” Id. at 331. We pointed out that\\n“[o]fficers do not need ironclad proof of a likely serious, life-threatening injury to invoke the\\nemergency aid exception . . . . [I]t sufficed . . . that it was reasonable to believe that” a victim\\nwas about to be or had already been hurt. Id. (first alteration in original) (internal citations and\\nquotation marks omitted). Further, we held that Moe committed no violation by remaining in the\\nhome even after he determined that Sarah was physically safe. Id. We pointed out that “a\\nwarrantless intrusion into a home must not exceed the exigency that permits it,” id.; however,\\nonce Moe was inside the home, “Schreiber was on the brink of violence and . . . even if . . . Sarah\\n\\n 6Ms. Baker notes that Schreiber involved a 911 call, but the instant case does not. See Appellant Br. at 35.\\nMs. Baker explains that 911 is “reserved for emergency calls, primarily calls about immediate danger.” Id. Here, of\\ncourse, instead of calling 911, Collin physically went to the police station to make his report. This distinction is not\\nlegally relevant, because the original source of the dispatcher’s information does not affect our analysis of how a\\nreasonable officer—who received the information from a dispatch, not from the original source—would act in\\nresponse to the information.\\n\\f No. 18-2181 Baker v. City of Trenton, et al. Page 10\\n\\n\\nwas at that point unharmed, a continued police presence was required for a time to prevent any\\nfuture harm.” Id.\\n\\n The circumstances in the instant case are similar. Because of the language of the initial\\ndispatch, the officers could reasonably believe that Ms. Baker was in the home with Kyle and\\nthat he was threatening her. They also had been informed that Kyle possessed a knife and had\\nrecently purchased a shotgun. From outside the home, the officers could not communicate with\\nanyone inside. Additionally, while they were at the home (and before they entered) the officers\\nwere updated with a dispatch stating that attempts to call the house were getting only busy\\nsignals. These facts did not dispel them of the notion that Ms. Baker was inside, with Kyle. And\\nbecause Officer Cheplick’s conversation with Mr. Baker did not occur until after the officers had\\nentered the home, it was not part of the mix of information they had to rely upon in deciding\\nwhether to enter. Based on the information that had been conveyed to them, those officers, upon\\narriving at the house and examining the scene from outside (coupled with the update from the\\nstation), reasonably could have determined, like the officers in Schreiber, that they needed more\\ninformation to determine the proper course of action. The situation impelled further\\ninvestigation, and reasonable officers would have believed that “serious consequences [would]\\ncertainly occur if [they] postpone[d] action to obtain a warrant.” Thacker, 328 F.3d at 253.\\n\\n Given these circumstances—that the officers could reasonably believe based on the\\ndispatch that Kyle was in the home with his mother, and that he was armed and threatening her—\\na reasonable jury could only conclude that the officers were justified in entering the home to\\ndetermine that Ms. Baker was safe. And once the officers were inside, given Kyle’s erratic\\nbehavior and the fact that he was armed with a lawnmower blade, no reasonable jury could fault\\nthe officers for remaining in the home.\\n\\n Ms. Baker attempts to argue to the contrary that exigent circumstances did not justify the\\nentry because Kyle posed no risk of danger to the police or others. She is certainly correct to\\npoint out that before the warrantless entry, Kyle did not in reality pose any risk to her. However,\\nshe is incorrect insofar as she argues that the officers should have known that Kyle posed no risk\\nof injury to others. While it is true that Ms. Baker was not in the house with Kyle, the\\nundisputed facts demonstrate that the officers reasonably believed that she was present.\\n\\f No. 18-2181 Baker v. City of Trenton, et al. Page 11\\n\\n\\nWe must analyze the actions of those officers on the scene by reference to a reasonable\\nunderstanding of the information that they actually received. As noted, their actions were\\nreasonable in light of what they reasonably could have understood was happening in the house.\\n\\n For these reasons, we find that the officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment by their\\nwarrantless entry. Having found no constitutional violation, we need not examine the second\\nprong of qualified immunity (whether the right was clearly established at the time of the\\nviolation). We therefore AFFIRM the decision of the district court as to the warrantless entry.\\n\\n B. Excessive Force\\n\\n Ms. Baker’s second claim is that Driscoll violated Kyle’s rights under the Fourth\\nAmendment by using excessive force to subdue him. We examine excessive-force claims under\\nan objective-reasonableness standard: “the question is whether the officers’ actions are\\n‘objectively reasonable’ in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard\\nto their underlying intent or motivation.” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396–97 (1989).\\nThis test is dependent on the facts of the individual case, most importantly “whether the suspect\\nposes an immediate threat to the safety of officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting\\narrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.” Id. at 396. A police officer “may not use deadly\\nforce against a citizen unless ‘the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a\\nsignificant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.’” Sova v. City of Mt.\\nPleasant, 142 F.3d 898, 902–03 (6th Cir. 1998) (quoting Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 3\\n(1985)). Thus, the question here is whether the facts, taken in the light most favorable to Ms.\\nBaker, would allow a jury to determine that Driscoll lacked probable cause to believe that Kyle\\nposed a significant threat of death or serious physical injury.\\n\\n The following facts are not in dispute: at the moment of the shooting, 1) Kyle was\\nholding a lawnmower blade, 2) he was advancing or had partially advanced up the stairs towards\\nDriscoll, 3) Driscoll had fallen backwards onto the stairs or a landing on the stairs, and was in a\\nseated or semi-seated position, and 4) Kyle actually struck Driscoll with the lawnmower blade.\\nWe must judge these facts “from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than\\n\\f No. 18-2181 Baker v. City of Trenton, et al. Page 12\\n\\n\\nwith the 20/20 vision of hindsight.” Graham, 490 U.S. at 396. Given these facts, no reasonable\\njury could find for Ms. Baker.\\n\\n Chappell v. City of Cleveland, 585 F.3d 901 (6th Cir. 2009) is instructive. That case\\narose from a police shooting of an armed adolescent. Id. There, two Cleveland police officers\\nexecuted a search warrant at the residence of a suspected armed robber. Id. at 904. In the course\\nof executing the warrant, the officers conducted a protective sweep of the premises. Id. During\\nthe protective sweep, the officers entered a bedroom that they believed to be unoccupied. Id. at\\n905. After they entered the room, however, they discovered fifteen-year-old Brandon McCloud\\n(the suspected robber) hiding in the closet. Id. The officers ordered McCloud to exit the closet\\nand show his hands. Id. When McCloud came out of the closet, he was carrying a knife. Id.\\nMcCloud moved toward the officers, ignoring their commands to stop, and they fired, killing\\nhim. Id. Subsequently, McCloud’s grandmother sued on his behalf under § 1983, alleging that\\nthe officers used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Id. The officers sought\\nsummary judgment on the ground that their actions were shielded by qualified immunity, but the\\ndistrict court denied their motion. Id.\\n\\n On appeal, we determined that the district court erred and that the defendants were\\nentitled to summary judgment. As we explained, the key factual question was “whether\\nMcCloud posed a serious and immediate threat of harm.” Id. at 909. Although the district court\\nhad determined that the record of that case presented a genuine dispute as to that question, we\\ndisagreed:\\n\\n The knife-wielding suspect was undisputedly moving toward the officers and had\\n closed to within five to seven feet in a dark, cluttered, enclosed space. Both\\n detectives were backed up against a wall in the small bedroom and there was no\\n ready means of retreat or escape. Considering McCloud’s stature (5’7”, 165 lbs.)\\n and the size of the knife (described and depicted in photograph as a standard\\n “steak knife” with serrated edge), it is apparent that if the detectives had hesitated\\n one instant, i.e., long enough to allow McCloud to take even one more step, they\\n would have been within his arm’s reach and vulnerable to serious or even fatal\\n injury. These undisputed circumstances clearly support probable cause to believe\\n that serious harm was imminently threatened and that use of deadly force in self-\\n defense was justified.\\n\\nId. at 911.\\n\\f No. 18-2181 Baker v. City of Trenton, et al. Page 13\\n\\n\\n The similarities between the relevant facts in Chappell and those here are striking. Both\\ncircumstances involved victims bearing bladed weapons, who approached officers in a narrow,\\nconfined space, moved within about six feet of the officers, and were shot and killed by the\\nofficers. In the instant case (unlike the deceased in Chappell), Kyle actually landed a blow upon\\nthe police officer before he was shot. There is some dispute about the actual distance between\\nKyle and Driscoll at the moment of the shooting, and whether Driscoll fired upward or\\ndownward. Appellees assert that Kyle was standing directly over Driscoll at the time of the\\nshooting, and that the officer fired upward defensively. By contrast, Ms. Baker asserts that Kyle\\nwas seven feet away from Driscoll, who fired down the stairs at Kyle. Even crediting Ms.\\nBaker’s version of the facts, Kyle was within the same five-to-seven-foot zone as the victim in\\nChappell, had already cut Driscoll once with a lawnmower blade, and could have immediately\\npressed home another assault, perhaps with fatal results. Even on Ms. Baker’s version of the\\nfacts, no reasonable jury could find that Driscoll used excessive force.\\n\\n Ms. Baker urges us to distinguish Chappell from the facts here. She emphasizes that the\\nvictim in Chappell was a suspected armed robber, that the officers in Chappell had obtained a\\nwarrant before entering, and that the officers in Chappell had no means of retreat, whereas\\nDriscoll “could have readily retreated, just as the other officers had.” Appellant Br. at 47. Baker\\nurges us instead to analogize the instant case to Bletz v. Gribble, 641 F.3d 743 (6th Cir. 2011).\\n\\n In Bletz, two police officers were sued for excessive force after shooting Fred Bletz\\nduring the execution of a warrant. Id. at 747. The officers had a warrant for failure to appear\\nagainst Zachary Bletz, who was the son of, and lived with, Fred Bletz. Id. When Zachary\\nanswered the door and stepped outside to talk with the officers, they told him they were there to\\narrest him for failure to appear. Id. at 747–48. However, because Zachary was wearing slippers,\\nthe police allowed him to re-enter the house to put on more appropriate footwear before taking\\nhim to jail. Id. at 748. When the officers followed Zachary into the house, they encountered\\nFred, who was holding a handgun. Id. The officers ordered Fred to put the weapon down. He\\nallegedly was lowering his weapon when the officers fired, killing him. Id.\\n\\f No. 18-2181 Baker v. City of Trenton, et al. Page 14\\n\\n\\n When the decedent’s estate sued under § 1983, the district court denied summary\\njudgment to the defendants on qualified immunity grounds. Id. at 749. On appeal, we affirmed\\nthe denial of qualified immunity. Id. In so doing, we distinguished Bletz from Chappell:\\n\\n There are . . . several key differences between the facts in Chappell and\\n the instant case. In Chappell, the officers had certain knowledge that the suspect\\n had engaged in prior armed robberies using a knife. Here, there was no\\n imputation of past or potential future violence on the part of Fred. In Chappell,\\n the officers were in a small room with no opportunity to retreat. Here, the officers\\n were in a breezeway, only feet away from the outside and, arguably, safety. In\\n Chappell, the subject had advanced to within five to seven feet and was\\n apparently lunging forward with a knife. Here, Fred was fifteen feet away and\\n was allegedly lowering his weapon.\\n Most importantly, in Chappell, “[n]one of [the] facts [were] refuted by\\n physical or circumstantial evidence and none [were] disputed by contrary\\n testimony. In fact, there [were] no other witnesses who could testify to the\\n circumstances facing the detectives in the bedroom immediately before they fired\\n their weapons.” In contrast, here, plaintiff’s allegations rest not only on the\\n eyewitness testimony of Zachary, but also on the differences of the testimony and\\n actions of the two defendants.\\n\\nBletz, 631 F.3d at 753 (internal citations omitted). Ms. Baker asserts that this case is more like\\nBletz than Chappell. We disagree.\\n\\n It is true that Kyle, unlike the deceased who was a previous armed robber in Chappell,\\nhad not engaged in any known prior violent criminal acts before his encounter with the police.\\nHowever, the responding officers could reasonably believe from the dispatch that Kyle had\\nthreatened his mother and they knew he had shouted obscenities at them and was erratically\\nswinging a lethal object. And unlike the officer in Bletz, Driscoll had just been struck by a\\npotentially lethal object, and faced the risk of being struck again. Unlike in Bletz, there was no\\nevidence from which a reasonable jury could find that the person who confronted the police was\\nputting his weapon down. Furthermore, although his fellow officers had successfully retreated,\\nDriscoll was in no position to back away from the encounter, as was the case for the officers in\\nBletz. Driscoll had fallen down and was in a vulnerable position. Because Kyle was armed and\\nwas at that moment engaged in violence against Driscoll (and further, because previous attempts\\nto nonlethally subdue Kyle had failed), Driscoll justifiably acted in self-defense.\\n\\f No. 18-2181 Baker v. City of Trenton, et al. Page 15\\n\\n\\n Given that Driscoll had probable cause to believe that Kyle would cause death or serious\\ninjury, his use of deadly force was not a violation of Kyle’s rights under the Fourth Amendment.\\nOnce again, finding no constitutional violation on this count, we need not examine the second\\nprong of qualified immunity. We therefore AFFIRM the district court’s grant of summary\\njudgment on the excessive-force claim.\\n\\n C. Municipal Liability\\n\\n Municipalities may be held liable under § 1983 for constitutional violations committed by\\ntheir employees if the violations result from municipal practices or policies. Monell v. Dep’t of\\nSoc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978). However, where there has been no showing of individual\\nconstitutional violations on the part of the officers involved, there can be no municipal liability.\\nSee Watkins v. City of Battle Creek, 273 F.3d 682, 687 (6th Cir. 2001) (“If no constitutional\\nviolation by the individual defendants is established, the municipal defendant[s] cannot be held\\nliable under § 1983.”). Because Ms. Baker has not shown that the individual officers committed\\nany constitutional violation, her claims against the City of Trenton must also fail. Accordingly,\\nwe AFFIRM the district court’s grant of summary judgment as to the municipal liability claim\\nas well.\\n\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n\\n The facts which gave rise to this case are tragic. However, for the foregoing reasons, we\\nAFFIRM the decision of the district court.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4434561/\", \"author_raw\": \"JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"SUTTON"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"BUSH"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"LARSEN"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"SUTTON\": \", Circuit\", \"BUSH\": \", Circuit\", \"LARSEN\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4657308/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":8,"string":"8"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Heather Baker v. City of Trenton\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-08-29\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0221p.06\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\n\n\n\n HEATHER BAKER, Personal Representative of the ┐\n Estate of Kyle Baker, Deceased, │\n Plaintiff-Appellant, │\n > No. 18-2181\n │\n v. │\n │\n │\n CITY OF TRENTON; MARK DRISCOLL; STEVE LYONS; │\n AARON BINIARZ; STEVE ARNOCZKI, │\n Defendants-Appellees. │\n ┘\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court\n for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.\n No. 2:16-cv-12280—Marianne O. Battani, District Judge.\n\n Argued: June 25, 2019\n\n Decided and Filed: August 29, 2019\n\n Before: SUTTON, BUSH, and LARSEN, Circuit Judges.\n _________________\n\n COUNSEL\n\nARGUED: Mark R. Bendure, BENDURE & THOMAS, PLC, Grosse Pointe Park, Michigan,\nfor Appellant. Courtney A. Jones, KALLAS & HENK, PC, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, for\nAppellees. ON BRIEF: Mark R. Bendure, BENDURE & THOMAS, PLC, Grosse Pointe Park,\nMichigan, for Appellant. Courtney A. Jones, KALLAS & HENK, PC, Bloomfield Hills,\nMichigan, for Appellees.\n _________________\n\n OPINION\n _________________\n\n JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge. This case involves a tragedy of good intentions. Shortly\nbefore his high school graduation, eighteen-year-old Kyle Baker apparently experimented with\n\f No. 18-2181 Baker v. City of Trenton, et al. Page 2\n\n\nLSD. The after-effects of the drug afflicted him for several days, resulting in his having to be\nremoved from class because of behavioral issues. Kyle’s friend, Collin Mathieu, checked in on\nhim after school to see if everything was all right. It was not. Collin went to the police and told\nthem that Kyle needed help and that Kyle was armed and upset with his mother. The police\ndispatcher sent four officers to the house; lost in the communication, however, was that the\nmother was not actually home with Kyle. Without waiting for a warrant, the officers entered\nKyle’s home. He appeared at the foot of the basement stairs, wielding a lawnmower blade.\nWhen the officers attempted to subdue Kyle with a taser, he came up the basement stairs\nswinging. The lawnmower blade struck an officer, who fell back on some stairs or a landing in\nfront of Kyle. The officer then shot and killed the young man.\n\n Kyle’s mother, Heather Baker, sued the individual officers and their employer, the City\nof Trenton, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of the Fourth Amendment guarantee\nagainst unreasonable searches and seizures, as incorporated against the States by the Fourteenth\nAmendment. After discovery, the district court granted summary judgment to the defendants,\nholding that the officers had not committed any such Fourth Amendment violation (and finding\nin the alternative that the officers had qualified immunity) and that the City could not be liable in\nthe absence of any constitutional violation. Ms. Baker now appeals this determination.\n\n This case is heart-rending, and we have deep sympathy for Kyle’s family and friends.\nNonetheless, given the circumstances and governing case law, we hold that the officers’ entry\ninto Kyle’s home and use of force did not violate the Fourth Amendment, and therefore we\nAFFIRM the decision of the district court.\n\n I. BACKGROUND1\n\n In May of 2015, Kyle Baker was set to graduate from Trenton High School in June. His\nparents, Heather and Tim Baker, were divorced, and Kyle split time between their houses,\ntypically spending weeknights with his father and stepmother and weekends with his mother.\n\n\n 1This is a fact-intensive case, with many points of dispute between the parties. Because this case was\ndecided on a motion for summary judgment, we construe the facts in the light most favorable to Ms. Baker, the non-\nmoving party. See Smith Wholesale Co. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 477 F.3d 854, 861 (6th Cir. 2007).\n\f No. 18-2181 Baker v. City of Trenton, et al. Page 3\n\n\nSometime in mid- to late-May, Kyle participated in “senior skip day,” the traditional day for\nseniors to cut class. Apparently, on this occasion, Kyle decided to try LSD.\n\n About one week after, on May 28, Kyle was acting oddly at school. The parties agree\nthat his strange behavior may have been caused by after-effects of the LSD. Kyle stared out the\nwindow and attempted to shield his eyes from the sun, although the sky was overcast that day.\nAlso, he could not hold an intelligible conversation, instead merely repeating whatever was said\nto him. As a result, Kyle was sent to the principal’s office. There, Kyle continued to behave\npeculiarly. For example, he said something to the effect that he was lying down, despite the fact\nthat he was standing up. Suspicious that Kyle might be under the influence of drugs, the\nprincipal (Dr. Michael Doyle) called the police. In response, Officer Jake Davis of the Trenton\nPolice Department visited the school and observed Kyle.\n\n Davis reported that Kyle was unresponsive to verbal communication. The officer also\nvoiced suspicion that Kyle was under the influence of an intoxicant and asked to speak with Dr.\nDoyle privately to determine the proper course of action. While they were in another room, Kyle\nwas left alone, and he used that opportunity to leave the school. He did not return.\n\n When Collin Mathieu, a friend of Kyle’s, learned what had happened, he texted Kyle’s\nmother to let her know. Additionally, Dr. Doyle called Ms. Baker, as well as separately called\nMr. Baker, to advise each of the situation. Ms. Baker reacted by calling Kyle’s cell phone, but\nshe initially was not able to reach him. Mr. Baker did reach Kyle, and he instructed his son to go\nhome and remain there. At some point later in the afternoon, Kyle also answered one of his\nmother’s phone calls. He told her that he did not know why Dr. Doyle had called the police, and\ndid not tell his mother where he was. Alarmed by this call, Ms. Baker tried several more times to\nreach Kyle, but to no avail. She then texted Collin that she was worried about Kyle.\n\n After school, Collin went looking for his friend. He first tried Mr. Baker’s house, but\nKyle was not there. Collin next checked a local park, but Kyle was not there either. Collin then\nreturned to Mr. Baker’s house, where he finally found his friend alone in the basement. Collin\ntook out his cell phone and showed Kyle the text messages from Ms. Baker. Collin then called\nMs. Baker, handing his cell phone to Kyle so that he could speak with his mother. The two\n\f No. 18-2181 Baker v. City of Trenton, et al. Page 4\n\n\ntalked briefly, after which Kyle refused to return the cell phone to Collin. Instead, according to\nCollin, Kyle showed him a pocket knife, though Kyle did not unfold the blade.\n\n After this encounter with Kyle, Collin decided to contact the police. Because Kyle had\nCollin’s phone and would not return it, Collin did not call 911 but instead went to the police\nstation in person to ask for help. There, Collin described to Kelsey Pare, a police dispatcher,\nwhat had transpired. Collin told Pare about Kyle’s call with his mother, but (again according to\nCollin’s account) he did not tell the dispatcher that Ms. Baker was present in the home with Kyle\nor that Kyle had made threatening remarks toward her. Pare has a different recollection of what\nCollin told her, and she testified that her dispatch accurately reflected what she had been told.\nPare put out the following dispatch:\n\n We have a teenage male in the lobby here, states that a teenager there named Kyle\n Baker left school today. When he went to go check on him he states that he had a\n knife in his home. He was threatening towards his mother. He also stole his cell\n phone. He left after he pulled the knife out. As far as he knows he’s still at the\n residence. We also have word he possibly may have purchased a shotgun last\n week. Try and make contact on the house phone but its [sic] just going busy.\n\nR. 25, PageID 489.\n\n Officers Driscoll, Arnoczki, Lyons, and Biniarz responded to the dispatch. After the\nofficers reached Mr. Baker’s house but before they entered, Pare communicated further details to\nthem:\n\n Caller came into station to report that he went to check on a friend that had left\n school today and when he did, his friend (Kyle Christian Baker, 18 yo w m) was\n threatening and yelling at his mother. He tried to talk to him and pulled a knife\n out and took his cell phone. The subj[ect] then went upstairs; The caller left after\n the subj[ect] went upstairs and came to the [station]; Sgt. Cheplick made several\n attempts to contact the house phone, busy line[.] Attempted to make contact by\n cell as well. No answer.2\n\n\n\n\n 2In this dispatch, Pare referred to Collin as “caller.” There is no evidence in the record, however, that\nCollin ever “called” the police station; rather, the record is clear that Collin made his report in person.\n\f No. 18-2181 Baker v. City of Trenton, et al. Page 5\n\n\nR. 25-4, PageID 715. Based on this message, the officers testified that they believed that Kyle,\narmed with a knife or a shotgun, or both, was holding his mother hostage.3\n\n Driscoll knocked on the front door of the house, but there was no response. Arnoczki\nwent around the back and found a door unlocked. He let himself in, followed by Driscoll and\nLyons, while Biniarz stayed at the front door. Once inside, the three officers loudly announced\ntheir presence as the Trenton police and called out asking if anyone was home. Kyle responded\nfrom the basement by shouting obscenities at the police and demanding that they leave. Biniarz\nthen went around to the back of the house, entering to join his colleagues. Two officers swept\nthe house (save for the basement) but found neither Ms. Baker nor any weapon. The officers\nthen positioned themselves at the top of the basement stairs. They tried to engage in dialogue\nwith Kyle, who was at the foot of the stairs. The officers asked Kyle where his mother was. Kyle\nresponded that he did not know. The officers noticed that Kyle was holding a lawnmower blade.\nThey asked him to come upstairs, but he refused. The four officers would not budge from their\npositions either. After several minutes of this standoff, Kyle finally decided to take a couple of\nsteps up the basement stairs. At that point, Lyons and Biniarz tasered him with projectile tasers\nfrom the top of the stairs. With Kyle seemingly stunned, Driscoll then started down the stairs to\nsubdue him.\n\n As Driscoll descended, however, Kyle stood back up and resumed heading up the stairs.\nBiniarz, Arnoczki, and Lyons backed off the stairs and into the upstairs kitchen, but Driscoll was\nunable to fully retreat. He lost his footing and fell into a seated or semi-seated position on some\nstairs or on a landing near the top of the staircase. From his position, Driscoll saw that Kyle was\nstill moving up the stairs with the lawnmower blade in his hand, swinging it erratically.\nAs Driscoll remained pinned on the stairs or the landing, Kyle struck him once with the\nlawnmower blade, producing a cut wound that required stitches. At that point, the officer shot\nhis assailant once. According to Driscoll, he fired upward at Kyle, who stood over him. But,\naccording to forensic evidence relied upon by Ms. Baker (which we must credit for purposes of\n\n 3Officer Cheplick was working dispatch alongside Pare. Cheplick called Mr. Baker to let him know that\npolice were at his house checking on Kyle and Ms. Baker. Mr. Baker told Cheplick that he did not believe that Ms.\nBaker was at the house. This conversation, however, occurred after the responding officers had already entered Mr.\nBaker’s house.\n\f No. 18-2181 Baker v. City of Trenton, et al. Page 6\n\n\nsummary judgment), Driscoll fired downward at Kyle, who at the time of the shot was seven feet\naway from the officer. The bullet passed through Kyle’s abdomen, inflicting injuries that\nultimately proved fatal. After Kyle was shot, Lyons went down into the basement and\nhandcuffed him.\n\n Kyle was then taken to the hospital, where he died from the gunshot wound. Only after\nDriscoll shot Kyle were the officers able to safely enter the basement and ascertain that Ms.\nBaker was not present. Although Kyle’s shotgun was ultimately located under his bed, the\nrecord does not indicate whether or where Kyle’s pocket knife was found.\n\n In the aftermath of the shooting, the Michigan State Police and the Trenton Police\nDepartment investigated the incident, and both determined that the shooting was done in self-\ndefense. The district court determined that the officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment in\neither their entry of the house or the shooting. Because it found that the officers had not\ncommitted any constitutional violation, the district court also held that there was no basis for\nfinding the City liable. Accordingly, the district court granted the motion for summary\njudgment. Baker timely appealed.\n\n II. DISCUSSION\n\n We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Maben v. Thelen,\n887 F.3d 252, 258 (6th Cir. 2018). Summary judgment is appropriate where “there is no genuine\ndispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.\nR. Civ. P. 56(a). A fact is material if it “might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing\nlaw.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Because a motion for\nsummary judgment “necessarily implicates the substantive evidentiary standard of proof that\nwould apply at the trial,” we must determine “whether reasonable jurors could find by a\npreponderance of the evidence that the [non-moving party] is entitled to a verdict.” Id. at 252.\nOnce the moving party has met the initial burden of showing the absence of a genuine dispute of\nmaterial fact, the non-moving party must then “come forward with specific facts showing that\nthere is a genuine issue for trial.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,\n475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (citation omitted) (emphasis removed). The non-moving party must\n\f No. 18-2181 Baker v. City of Trenton, et al. Page 7\n\n\n“do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Id. at\n586. “The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiff’s position will be\ninsufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff.”\nAnderson, 477 U.S. at 252. However, in considering the evidence in the record, the court must\nview the evidence “in a light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, giving that party\nthe benefit of all reasonable inferences.” Smith Wholesale Co. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,\n477 F.3d 854, 861 (6th Cir. 2007).\n\n Ms. Baker has three Fourth Amendment claims: 1) that the officers violated Kyle’s\nconstitutional rights when they entered the home without a warrant, 2) that Driscoll violated\nKyle’s constitutional rights when he shot Kyle, and 3) that the City of Trenton violated Kyle’s\nconstitutional rights by failing to properly train and discipline its police officers. 4 As explained\nbelow, Appellees were properly granted summary judgment as to each of these claims.\n\n A. Warrantless Entry\n\n “It is a ‘basic principle of Fourth Amendment law’ that searches and seizures inside a\nhome without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable.” Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573,\n585 (1980) (quotation omitted). “[T]he physical entry of the home is the chief evil against which\nthe wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed.” Id. (quoting United States v. U.S. Dist.\nCourt, 407 U.S. 297, 313 (1972)). Because the officers in this case entered the home without a\nwarrant and without permission, their entry was unlawful unless it falls into an exception to this\ngeneral rule. We conclude that the officers’ entry was justified under the exigent-circumstances\nexception.5\n\n “Exigent circumstances are situations where real[,] immediate[,] and serious\nconsequences will certainly occur if the police officer postpones action to obtain a warrant.”\n\n 4Initially,\n Ms. Baker also claimed that the officers violated Kyle’s Fifth Amendment rights by refusing to\nleave the home when Kyle refused to speak with them. However, she has abandoned this claim and we will not\nconsider it.\n 5Because we find that exigent circumstances justified the officers’ entry, we do not address Appellees’\nsecond argued basis for the warrantless entry—the community caretaker exception, which applies when officers are\nnot engaged in “traditional law enforcement functions.” See United States v. Rohrig, 98 F.3d 1506, 1521 (6th Cir.\n1996).\n\f No. 18-2181 Baker v. City of Trenton, et al. Page 8\n\n\nThacker v. City of Columbus, 328 F.3d 244, 253 (6th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks and\ncitations omitted). There are four recognized situations where exigent circumstances allow a\nwarrantless entry: “(1) hot pursuit of a fleeing felon, (2) imminent destruction of evidence,\n(3) the need to prevent a suspect’s escape, and (4) a risk of danger to the police or others.”\nUnited States v. Rohrig, 98 F.3d 1506, 1515 (6th Cir. 1996). Baker argues that the first three\ncircumstances do not apply here. Kyle was not a fleeing felon, no one believed him to be in the\nprocess of destroying evidence, and he was not a suspect attempting escape. Appellees do not\ndispute these points. Thus, our analysis focuses on the risk of danger.\n\n “Under the exigent circumstances exception concerning the threat of violence to officers\nor others, police officers ‘may enter a home without a warrant to render emergency assistance to\nan injured occupant or to protect an occupant from imminent injury.’” Goodwin v. City of\nPainesville, 781 F.3d 314, 332 (6th Cir. 2015) (quoting Schreiber v. Moe, 596 F.3d 323, 329–30\n(6th Cir. 2010)). We use an objective test to analyze the circumstances that gave rise to a\nwarrantless entry: “An action is ‘reasonable’ under the Fourth Amendment, regardless of the\nindividual officer’s state of mind, ‘as long as the circumstances, viewed objectively, justify [the]\naction.’” Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 404 (2006) (quoting Scott v. United States, 436\nU.S. 128, 138 (1978)). As applied to the danger-to-police-or-others exception, a lawful\nwarrantless entry requires “an objectively reasonable basis for believing . . . that a person within\nthe house is in need of immediate aid.” Goodwin, 781 F.3d at 332 (quoting Michigan v. Fisher,\n558 U.S. 45, 47 (2009)). More specifically, this standard requires us to determine whether “a\nreasonable person [would] believe that the entry was necessary to prevent physical harm to the\nofficers or other persons.” Brigham City, 547 U.S. at 402 (citation omitted) (alteration in\noriginal).\n\n The facts here indicate that a reasonable person in the officers’ position would indeed\nbelieve that entry was necessary to prevent physical harm. The reasonableness standard of the\nFourth Amendment requires us to examine the officers’ actions in response to the information\nthey had been given. When those officers arrived at the house, they had only the information\nthey received from the dispatcher. Based on that information, they could have reasonably\nbelieved that Ms. Baker was inside with Kyle, that he was armed in some fashion, with the knife\n\f No. 18-2181 Baker v. City of Trenton, et al. Page 9\n\n\nor the shotgun, or both, and that he was threatening her. We have previously considered similar\ncases.\n\n In Schreiber v. Moe, 596 F.3d 323 (6th Cir. 2010), we considered the case of a police\nofficer, William Moe, who entered a home without a warrant in response to a dispatch message\nfrom the police station. In that case, an anonymous 911 caller6 reported a case of domestic abuse\nin the home of James Warren Schreiber. Id. at 326. The message was relayed to Moe (via a\nmessage sent to his in-car computer, id. at 326 n.1) and indicated that there was “a risk of\nphysical harm to a person at the scene.” Id. at 326. There was a dispute over what Moe\nobserved when he arrived at the home—Moe testified that he saw both Schreiber and Schreiber’s\nteenage daughter Sarah, who was the alleged victim of domestic abuse, whereas Schreiber\ntestified that the only person that Moe could have seen was Schreiber himself. Id. In any event,\nMoe entered Schreiber’s home without a warrant and against Schreiber’s wishes, and a physical\naltercation between the two ensued. Schreiber subsequently sued Moe under § 1983 for\nexcessive force and warrantless entry. Id. at 328.\n\n Moe argued that exigent circumstances justified his entry into the home, and we agreed.\nEven if Schreiber was correct on the disputed factual point—that is, even if Moe could see only\nSchreiber, and not Sarah—“Moe’s inability to see Sarah would have made it reasonable for him\nto investigate so that he could confirm that Sarah was okay.” Id. at 331. We pointed out that\n“[o]fficers do not need ironclad proof of a likely serious, life-threatening injury to invoke the\nemergency aid exception . . . . [I]t sufficed . . . that it was reasonable to believe that” a victim\nwas about to be or had already been hurt. Id. (first alteration in original) (internal citations and\nquotation marks omitted). Further, we held that Moe committed no violation by remaining in the\nhome even after he determined that Sarah was physically safe. Id. We pointed out that “a\nwarrantless intrusion into a home must not exceed the exigency that permits it,” id.; however,\nonce Moe was inside the home, “Schreiber was on the brink of violence and . . . even if . . . Sarah\n\n 6Ms. Baker notes that Schreiber involved a 911 call, but the instant case does not. See Appellant Br. at 35.\nMs. Baker explains that 911 is “reserved for emergency calls, primarily calls about immediate danger.” Id. Here, of\ncourse, instead of calling 911, Collin physically went to the police station to make his report. This distinction is not\nlegally relevant, because the original source of the dispatcher’s information does not affect our analysis of how a\nreasonable officer—who received the information from a dispatch, not from the original source—would act in\nresponse to the information.\n\f No. 18-2181 Baker v. City of Trenton, et al. Page 10\n\n\nwas at that point unharmed, a continued police presence was required for a time to prevent any\nfuture harm.” Id.\n\n The circumstances in the instant case are similar. Because of the language of the initial\ndispatch, the officers could reasonably believe that Ms. Baker was in the home with Kyle and\nthat he was threatening her. They also had been informed that Kyle possessed a knife and had\nrecently purchased a shotgun. From outside the home, the officers could not communicate with\nanyone inside. Additionally, while they were at the home (and before they entered) the officers\nwere updated with a dispatch stating that attempts to call the house were getting only busy\nsignals. These facts did not dispel them of the notion that Ms. Baker was inside, with Kyle. And\nbecause Officer Cheplick’s conversation with Mr. Baker did not occur until after the officers had\nentered the home, it was not part of the mix of information they had to rely upon in deciding\nwhether to enter. Based on the information that had been conveyed to them, those officers, upon\narriving at the house and examining the scene from outside (coupled with the update from the\nstation), reasonably could have determined, like the officers in Schreiber, that they needed more\ninformation to determine the proper course of action. The situation impelled further\ninvestigation, and reasonable officers would have believed that “serious consequences [would]\ncertainly occur if [they] postpone[d] action to obtain a warrant.” Thacker, 328 F.3d at 253.\n\n Given these circumstances—that the officers could reasonably believe based on the\ndispatch that Kyle was in the home with his mother, and that he was armed and threatening her—\na reasonable jury could only conclude that the officers were justified in entering the home to\ndetermine that Ms. Baker was safe. And once the officers were inside, given Kyle’s erratic\nbehavior and the fact that he was armed with a lawnmower blade, no reasonable jury could fault\nthe officers for remaining in the home.\n\n Ms. Baker attempts to argue to the contrary that exigent circumstances did not justify the\nentry because Kyle posed no risk of danger to the police or others. She is certainly correct to\npoint out that before the warrantless entry, Kyle did not in reality pose any risk to her. However,\nshe is incorrect insofar as she argues that the officers should have known that Kyle posed no risk\nof injury to others. While it is true that Ms. Baker was not in the house with Kyle, the\nundisputed facts demonstrate that the officers reasonably believed that she was present.\n\f No. 18-2181 Baker v. City of Trenton, et al. Page 11\n\n\nWe must analyze the actions of those officers on the scene by reference to a reasonable\nunderstanding of the information that they actually received. As noted, their actions were\nreasonable in light of what they reasonably could have understood was happening in the house.\n\n For these reasons, we find that the officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment by their\nwarrantless entry. Having found no constitutional violation, we need not examine the second\nprong of qualified immunity (whether the right was clearly established at the time of the\nviolation). We therefore AFFIRM the decision of the district court as to the warrantless entry.\n\n B. Excessive Force\n\n Ms. Baker’s second claim is that Driscoll violated Kyle’s rights under the Fourth\nAmendment by using excessive force to subdue him. We examine excessive-force claims under\nan objective-reasonableness standard: “the question is whether the officers’ actions are\n‘objectively reasonable’ in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard\nto their underlying intent or motivation.” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396–97 (1989).\nThis test is dependent on the facts of the individual case, most importantly “whether the suspect\nposes an immediate threat to the safety of officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting\narrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.” Id. at 396. A police officer “may not use deadly\nforce against a citizen unless ‘the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a\nsignificant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.’” Sova v. City of Mt.\nPleasant, 142 F.3d 898, 902–03 (6th Cir. 1998) (quoting Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 3\n(1985)). Thus, the question here is whether the facts, taken in the light most favorable to Ms.\nBaker, would allow a jury to determine that Driscoll lacked probable cause to believe that Kyle\nposed a significant threat of death or serious physical injury.\n\n The following facts are not in dispute: at the moment of the shooting, 1) Kyle was\nholding a lawnmower blade, 2) he was advancing or had partially advanced up the stairs towards\nDriscoll, 3) Driscoll had fallen backwards onto the stairs or a landing on the stairs, and was in a\nseated or semi-seated position, and 4) Kyle actually struck Driscoll with the lawnmower blade.\nWe must judge these facts “from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than\n\f No. 18-2181 Baker v. City of Trenton, et al. Page 12\n\n\nwith the 20/20 vision of hindsight.” Graham, 490 U.S. at 396. Given these facts, no reasonable\njury could find for Ms. Baker.\n\n Chappell v. City of Cleveland, 585 F.3d 901 (6th Cir. 2009) is instructive. That case\narose from a police shooting of an armed adolescent. Id. There, two Cleveland police officers\nexecuted a search warrant at the residence of a suspected armed robber. Id. at 904. In the course\nof executing the warrant, the officers conducted a protective sweep of the premises. Id. During\nthe protective sweep, the officers entered a bedroom that they believed to be unoccupied. Id. at\n905. After they entered the room, however, they discovered fifteen-year-old Brandon McCloud\n(the suspected robber) hiding in the closet. Id. The officers ordered McCloud to exit the closet\nand show his hands. Id. When McCloud came out of the closet, he was carrying a knife. Id.\nMcCloud moved toward the officers, ignoring their commands to stop, and they fired, killing\nhim. Id. Subsequently, McCloud’s grandmother sued on his behalf under § 1983, alleging that\nthe officers used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Id. The officers sought\nsummary judgment on the ground that their actions were shielded by qualified immunity, but the\ndistrict court denied their motion. Id.\n\n On appeal, we determined that the district court erred and that the defendants were\nentitled to summary judgment. As we explained, the key factual question was “whether\nMcCloud posed a serious and immediate threat of harm.” Id. at 909. Although the district court\nhad determined that the record of that case presented a genuine dispute as to that question, we\ndisagreed:\n\n The knife-wielding suspect was undisputedly moving toward the officers and had\n closed to within five to seven feet in a dark, cluttered, enclosed space. Both\n detectives were backed up against a wall in the small bedroom and there was no\n ready means of retreat or escape. Considering McCloud’s stature (5’7”, 165 lbs.)\n and the size of the knife (described and depicted in photograph as a standard\n “steak knife” with serrated edge), it is apparent that if the detectives had hesitated\n one instant, i.e., long enough to allow McCloud to take even one more step, they\n would have been within his arm’s reach and vulnerable to serious or even fatal\n injury. These undisputed circumstances clearly support probable cause to believe\n that serious harm was imminently threatened and that use of deadly force in self-\n defense was justified.\n\nId. at 911.\n\f No. 18-2181 Baker v. City of Trenton, et al. Page 13\n\n\n The similarities between the relevant facts in Chappell and those here are striking. Both\ncircumstances involved victims bearing bladed weapons, who approached officers in a narrow,\nconfined space, moved within about six feet of the officers, and were shot and killed by the\nofficers. In the instant case (unlike the deceased in Chappell), Kyle actually landed a blow upon\nthe police officer before he was shot. There is some dispute about the actual distance between\nKyle and Driscoll at the moment of the shooting, and whether Driscoll fired upward or\ndownward. Appellees assert that Kyle was standing directly over Driscoll at the time of the\nshooting, and that the officer fired upward defensively. By contrast, Ms. Baker asserts that Kyle\nwas seven feet away from Driscoll, who fired down the stairs at Kyle. Even crediting Ms.\nBaker’s version of the facts, Kyle was within the same five-to-seven-foot zone as the victim in\nChappell, had already cut Driscoll once with a lawnmower blade, and could have immediately\npressed home another assault, perhaps with fatal results. Even on Ms. Baker’s version of the\nfacts, no reasonable jury could find that Driscoll used excessive force.\n\n Ms. Baker urges us to distinguish Chappell from the facts here. She emphasizes that the\nvictim in Chappell was a suspected armed robber, that the officers in Chappell had obtained a\nwarrant before entering, and that the officers in Chappell had no means of retreat, whereas\nDriscoll “could have readily retreated, just as the other officers had.” Appellant Br. at 47. Baker\nurges us instead to analogize the instant case to Bletz v. Gribble, 641 F.3d 743 (6th Cir. 2011).\n\n In Bletz, two police officers were sued for excessive force after shooting Fred Bletz\nduring the execution of a warrant. Id. at 747. The officers had a warrant for failure to appear\nagainst Zachary Bletz, who was the son of, and lived with, Fred Bletz. Id. When Zachary\nanswered the door and stepped outside to talk with the officers, they told him they were there to\narrest him for failure to appear. Id. at 747–48. However, because Zachary was wearing slippers,\nthe police allowed him to re-enter the house to put on more appropriate footwear before taking\nhim to jail. Id. at 748. When the officers followed Zachary into the house, they encountered\nFred, who was holding a handgun. Id. The officers ordered Fred to put the weapon down. He\nallegedly was lowering his weapon when the officers fired, killing him. Id.\n\f No. 18-2181 Baker v. City of Trenton, et al. Page 14\n\n\n When the decedent’s estate sued under § 1983, the district court denied summary\njudgment to the defendants on qualified immunity grounds. Id. at 749. On appeal, we affirmed\nthe denial of qualified immunity. Id. In so doing, we distinguished Bletz from Chappell:\n\n There are . . . several key differences between the facts in Chappell and\n the instant case. In Chappell, the officers had certain knowledge that the suspect\n had engaged in prior armed robberies using a knife. Here, there was no\n imputation of past or potential future violence on the part of Fred. In Chappell,\n the officers were in a small room with no opportunity to retreat. Here, the officers\n were in a breezeway, only feet away from the outside and, arguably, safety. In\n Chappell, the subject had advanced to within five to seven feet and was\n apparently lunging forward with a knife. Here, Fred was fifteen feet away and\n was allegedly lowering his weapon.\n Most importantly, in Chappell, “[n]one of [the] facts [were] refuted by\n physical or circumstantial evidence and none [were] disputed by contrary\n testimony. In fact, there [were] no other witnesses who could testify to the\n circumstances facing the detectives in the bedroom immediately before they fired\n their weapons.” In contrast, here, plaintiff’s allegations rest not only on the\n eyewitness testimony of Zachary, but also on the differences of the testimony and\n actions of the two defendants.\n\nBletz, 631 F.3d at 753 (internal citations omitted). Ms. Baker asserts that this case is more like\nBletz than Chappell. We disagree.\n\n It is true that Kyle, unlike the deceased who was a previous armed robber in Chappell,\nhad not engaged in any known prior violent criminal acts before his encounter with the police.\nHowever, the responding officers could reasonably believe from the dispatch that Kyle had\nthreatened his mother and they knew he had shouted obscenities at them and was erratically\nswinging a lethal object. And unlike the officer in Bletz, Driscoll had just been struck by a\npotentially lethal object, and faced the risk of being struck again. Unlike in Bletz, there was no\nevidence from which a reasonable jury could find that the person who confronted the police was\nputting his weapon down. Furthermore, although his fellow officers had successfully retreated,\nDriscoll was in no position to back away from the encounter, as was the case for the officers in\nBletz. Driscoll had fallen down and was in a vulnerable position. Because Kyle was armed and\nwas at that moment engaged in violence against Driscoll (and further, because previous attempts\nto nonlethally subdue Kyle had failed), Driscoll justifiably acted in self-defense.\n\f No. 18-2181 Baker v. City of Trenton, et al. Page 15\n\n\n Given that Driscoll had probable cause to believe that Kyle would cause death or serious\ninjury, his use of deadly force was not a violation of Kyle’s rights under the Fourth Amendment.\nOnce again, finding no constitutional violation on this count, we need not examine the second\nprong of qualified immunity. We therefore AFFIRM the district court’s grant of summary\njudgment on the excessive-force claim.\n\n C. Municipal Liability\n\n Municipalities may be held liable under § 1983 for constitutional violations committed by\ntheir employees if the violations result from municipal practices or policies. Monell v. Dep’t of\nSoc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978). However, where there has been no showing of individual\nconstitutional violations on the part of the officers involved, there can be no municipal liability.\nSee Watkins v. City of Battle Creek, 273 F.3d 682, 687 (6th Cir. 2001) (“If no constitutional\nviolation by the individual defendants is established, the municipal defendant[s] cannot be held\nliable under § 1983.”). Because Ms. Baker has not shown that the individual officers committed\nany constitutional violation, her claims against the City of Trenton must also fail. Accordingly,\nwe AFFIRM the district court’s grant of summary judgment as to the municipal liability claim\nas well.\n\n III. CONCLUSION\n\n The facts which gave rise to this case are tragic. However, for the foregoing reasons, we\nAFFIRM the decision of the district court.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Heather Baker v. City of Trenton\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-08-29\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0221p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n HEATHER BAKER, Personal Representative of the ┐\\n Estate of Kyle Baker, Deceased, │\\n Plaintiff-Appellant, │\\n > No. 18-2181\\n │\\n v. │\\n │\\n │\\n CITY OF TRENTON; MARK DRISCOLL; STEVE LYONS; │\\n AARON BINIARZ; STEVE ARNOCZKI, │\\n Defendants-Appellees. │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.\\n No. 2:16-cv-12280—Marianne O. Battani, District Judge.\\n\\n Argued: June 25, 2019\\n\\n Decided and Filed: August 29, 2019\\n\\n Before: SUTTON, BUSH, and LARSEN, Circuit Judges.\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nARGUED: Mark R. Bendure, BENDURE & THOMAS, PLC, Grosse Pointe Park, Michigan,\\nfor Appellant. Courtney A. Jones, KALLAS & HENK, PC, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, for\\nAppellees. ON BRIEF: Mark R. Bendure, BENDURE & THOMAS, PLC, Grosse Pointe Park,\\nMichigan, for Appellant. Courtney A. Jones, KALLAS & HENK, PC, Bloomfield Hills,\\nMichigan, for Appellees.\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge. This case involves a tragedy of good intentions. Shortly\\nbefore his high school graduation, eighteen-year-old Kyle Baker apparently experimented with\\n\\f No. 18-2181 Baker v. City of Trenton, et al. Page 2\\n\\n\\nLSD. The after-effects of the drug afflicted him for several days, resulting in his having to be\\nremoved from class because of behavioral issues. Kyle’s friend, Collin Mathieu, checked in on\\nhim after school to see if everything was all right. It was not. Collin went to the police and told\\nthem that Kyle needed help and that Kyle was armed and upset with his mother. The police\\ndispatcher sent four officers to the house; lost in the communication, however, was that the\\nmother was not actually home with Kyle. Without waiting for a warrant, the officers entered\\nKyle’s home. He appeared at the foot of the basement stairs, wielding a lawnmower blade.\\nWhen the officers attempted to subdue Kyle with a taser, he came up the basement stairs\\nswinging. The lawnmower blade struck an officer, who fell back on some stairs or a landing in\\nfront of Kyle. The officer then shot and killed the young man.\\n\\n Kyle’s mother, Heather Baker, sued the individual officers and their employer, the City\\nof Trenton, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of the Fourth Amendment guarantee\\nagainst unreasonable searches and seizures, as incorporated against the States by the Fourteenth\\nAmendment. After discovery, the district court granted summary judgment to the defendants,\\nholding that the officers had not committed any such Fourth Amendment violation (and finding\\nin the alternative that the officers had qualified immunity) and that the City could not be liable in\\nthe absence of any constitutional violation. Ms. Baker now appeals this determination.\\n\\n This case is heart-rending, and we have deep sympathy for Kyle’s family and friends.\\nNonetheless, given the circumstances and governing case law, we hold that the officers’ entry\\ninto Kyle’s home and use of force did not violate the Fourth Amendment, and therefore we\\nAFFIRM the decision of the district court.\\n\\n I. BACKGROUND1\\n\\n In May of 2015, Kyle Baker was set to graduate from Trenton High School in June. His\\nparents, Heather and Tim Baker, were divorced, and Kyle split time between their houses,\\ntypically spending weeknights with his father and stepmother and weekends with his mother.\\n\\n\\n 1This is a fact-intensive case, with many points of dispute between the parties. Because this case was\\ndecided on a motion for summary judgment, we construe the facts in the light most favorable to Ms. Baker, the non-\\nmoving party. See Smith Wholesale Co. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 477 F.3d 854, 861 (6th Cir. 2007).\\n\\f No. 18-2181 Baker v. City of Trenton, et al. Page 3\\n\\n\\nSometime in mid- to late-May, Kyle participated in “senior skip day,” the traditional day for\\nseniors to cut class. Apparently, on this occasion, Kyle decided to try LSD.\\n\\n About one week after, on May 28, Kyle was acting oddly at school. The parties agree\\nthat his strange behavior may have been caused by after-effects of the LSD. Kyle stared out the\\nwindow and attempted to shield his eyes from the sun, although the sky was overcast that day.\\nAlso, he could not hold an intelligible conversation, instead merely repeating whatever was said\\nto him. As a result, Kyle was sent to the principal’s office. There, Kyle continued to behave\\npeculiarly. For example, he said something to the effect that he was lying down, despite the fact\\nthat he was standing up. Suspicious that Kyle might be under the influence of drugs, the\\nprincipal (Dr. Michael Doyle) called the police. In response, Officer Jake Davis of the Trenton\\nPolice Department visited the school and observed Kyle.\\n\\n Davis reported that Kyle was unresponsive to verbal communication. The officer also\\nvoiced suspicion that Kyle was under the influence of an intoxicant and asked to speak with Dr.\\nDoyle privately to determine the proper course of action. While they were in another room, Kyle\\nwas left alone, and he used that opportunity to leave the school. He did not return.\\n\\n When Collin Mathieu, a friend of Kyle’s, learned what had happened, he texted Kyle’s\\nmother to let her know. Additionally, Dr. Doyle called Ms. Baker, as well as separately called\\nMr. Baker, to advise each of the situation. Ms. Baker reacted by calling Kyle’s cell phone, but\\nshe initially was not able to reach him. Mr. Baker did reach Kyle, and he instructed his son to go\\nhome and remain there. At some point later in the afternoon, Kyle also answered one of his\\nmother’s phone calls. He told her that he did not know why Dr. Doyle had called the police, and\\ndid not tell his mother where he was. Alarmed by this call, Ms. Baker tried several more times to\\nreach Kyle, but to no avail. She then texted Collin that she was worried about Kyle.\\n\\n After school, Collin went looking for his friend. He first tried Mr. Baker’s house, but\\nKyle was not there. Collin next checked a local park, but Kyle was not there either. Collin then\\nreturned to Mr. Baker’s house, where he finally found his friend alone in the basement. Collin\\ntook out his cell phone and showed Kyle the text messages from Ms. Baker. Collin then called\\nMs. Baker, handing his cell phone to Kyle so that he could speak with his mother. The two\\n\\f No. 18-2181 Baker v. City of Trenton, et al. Page 4\\n\\n\\ntalked briefly, after which Kyle refused to return the cell phone to Collin. Instead, according to\\nCollin, Kyle showed him a pocket knife, though Kyle did not unfold the blade.\\n\\n After this encounter with Kyle, Collin decided to contact the police. Because Kyle had\\nCollin’s phone and would not return it, Collin did not call 911 but instead went to the police\\nstation in person to ask for help. There, Collin described to Kelsey Pare, a police dispatcher,\\nwhat had transpired. Collin told Pare about Kyle’s call with his mother, but (again according to\\nCollin’s account) he did not tell the dispatcher that Ms. Baker was present in the home with Kyle\\nor that Kyle had made threatening remarks toward her. Pare has a different recollection of what\\nCollin told her, and she testified that her dispatch accurately reflected what she had been told.\\nPare put out the following dispatch:\\n\\n We have a teenage male in the lobby here, states that a teenager there named Kyle\\n Baker left school today. When he went to go check on him he states that he had a\\n knife in his home. He was threatening towards his mother. He also stole his cell\\n phone. He left after he pulled the knife out. As far as he knows he’s still at the\\n residence. We also have word he possibly may have purchased a shotgun last\\n week. Try and make contact on the house phone but its [sic] just going busy.\\n\\nR. 25, PageID 489.\\n\\n Officers Driscoll, Arnoczki, Lyons, and Biniarz responded to the dispatch. After the\\nofficers reached Mr. Baker’s house but before they entered, Pare communicated further details to\\nthem:\\n\\n Caller came into station to report that he went to check on a friend that had left\\n school today and when he did, his friend (Kyle Christian Baker, 18 yo w m) was\\n threatening and yelling at his mother. He tried to talk to him and pulled a knife\\n out and took his cell phone. The subj[ect] then went upstairs; The caller left after\\n the subj[ect] went upstairs and came to the [station]; Sgt. Cheplick made several\\n attempts to contact the house phone, busy line[.] Attempted to make contact by\\n cell as well. No answer.2\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 2In this dispatch, Pare referred to Collin as “caller.” There is no evidence in the record, however, that\\nCollin ever “called” the police station; rather, the record is clear that Collin made his report in person.\\n\\f No. 18-2181 Baker v. City of Trenton, et al. Page 5\\n\\n\\nR. 25-4, PageID 715. Based on this message, the officers testified that they believed that Kyle,\\narmed with a knife or a shotgun, or both, was holding his mother hostage.3\\n\\n Driscoll knocked on the front door of the house, but there was no response. Arnoczki\\nwent around the back and found a door unlocked. He let himself in, followed by Driscoll and\\nLyons, while Biniarz stayed at the front door. Once inside, the three officers loudly announced\\ntheir presence as the Trenton police and called out asking if anyone was home. Kyle responded\\nfrom the basement by shouting obscenities at the police and demanding that they leave. Biniarz\\nthen went around to the back of the house, entering to join his colleagues. Two officers swept\\nthe house (save for the basement) but found neither Ms. Baker nor any weapon. The officers\\nthen positioned themselves at the top of the basement stairs. They tried to engage in dialogue\\nwith Kyle, who was at the foot of the stairs. The officers asked Kyle where his mother was. Kyle\\nresponded that he did not know. The officers noticed that Kyle was holding a lawnmower blade.\\nThey asked him to come upstairs, but he refused. The four officers would not budge from their\\npositions either. After several minutes of this standoff, Kyle finally decided to take a couple of\\nsteps up the basement stairs. At that point, Lyons and Biniarz tasered him with projectile tasers\\nfrom the top of the stairs. With Kyle seemingly stunned, Driscoll then started down the stairs to\\nsubdue him.\\n\\n As Driscoll descended, however, Kyle stood back up and resumed heading up the stairs.\\nBiniarz, Arnoczki, and Lyons backed off the stairs and into the upstairs kitchen, but Driscoll was\\nunable to fully retreat. He lost his footing and fell into a seated or semi-seated position on some\\nstairs or on a landing near the top of the staircase. From his position, Driscoll saw that Kyle was\\nstill moving up the stairs with the lawnmower blade in his hand, swinging it erratically.\\nAs Driscoll remained pinned on the stairs or the landing, Kyle struck him once with the\\nlawnmower blade, producing a cut wound that required stitches. At that point, the officer shot\\nhis assailant once. According to Driscoll, he fired upward at Kyle, who stood over him. But,\\naccording to forensic evidence relied upon by Ms. Baker (which we must credit for purposes of\\n\\n 3Officer Cheplick was working dispatch alongside Pare. Cheplick called Mr. Baker to let him know that\\npolice were at his house checking on Kyle and Ms. Baker. Mr. Baker told Cheplick that he did not believe that Ms.\\nBaker was at the house. This conversation, however, occurred after the responding officers had already entered Mr.\\nBaker’s house.\\n\\f No. 18-2181 Baker v. City of Trenton, et al. Page 6\\n\\n\\nsummary judgment), Driscoll fired downward at Kyle, who at the time of the shot was seven feet\\naway from the officer. The bullet passed through Kyle’s abdomen, inflicting injuries that\\nultimately proved fatal. After Kyle was shot, Lyons went down into the basement and\\nhandcuffed him.\\n\\n Kyle was then taken to the hospital, where he died from the gunshot wound. Only after\\nDriscoll shot Kyle were the officers able to safely enter the basement and ascertain that Ms.\\nBaker was not present. Although Kyle’s shotgun was ultimately located under his bed, the\\nrecord does not indicate whether or where Kyle’s pocket knife was found.\\n\\n In the aftermath of the shooting, the Michigan State Police and the Trenton Police\\nDepartment investigated the incident, and both determined that the shooting was done in self-\\ndefense. The district court determined that the officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment in\\neither their entry of the house or the shooting. Because it found that the officers had not\\ncommitted any constitutional violation, the district court also held that there was no basis for\\nfinding the City liable. Accordingly, the district court granted the motion for summary\\njudgment. Baker timely appealed.\\n\\n II. DISCUSSION\\n\\n We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Maben v. Thelen,\\n887 F.3d 252, 258 (6th Cir. 2018). Summary judgment is appropriate where “there is no genuine\\ndispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.\\nR. Civ. P. 56(a). A fact is material if it “might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing\\nlaw.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Because a motion for\\nsummary judgment “necessarily implicates the substantive evidentiary standard of proof that\\nwould apply at the trial,” we must determine “whether reasonable jurors could find by a\\npreponderance of the evidence that the [non-moving party] is entitled to a verdict.” Id. at 252.\\nOnce the moving party has met the initial burden of showing the absence of a genuine dispute of\\nmaterial fact, the non-moving party must then “come forward with specific facts showing that\\nthere is a genuine issue for trial.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,\\n475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (citation omitted) (emphasis removed). The non-moving party must\\n\\f No. 18-2181 Baker v. City of Trenton, et al. Page 7\\n\\n\\n“do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Id. at\\n586. “The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiff’s position will be\\ninsufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff.”\\nAnderson, 477 U.S. at 252. However, in considering the evidence in the record, the court must\\nview the evidence “in a light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, giving that party\\nthe benefit of all reasonable inferences.” Smith Wholesale Co. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,\\n477 F.3d 854, 861 (6th Cir. 2007).\\n\\n Ms. Baker has three Fourth Amendment claims: 1) that the officers violated Kyle’s\\nconstitutional rights when they entered the home without a warrant, 2) that Driscoll violated\\nKyle’s constitutional rights when he shot Kyle, and 3) that the City of Trenton violated Kyle’s\\nconstitutional rights by failing to properly train and discipline its police officers. 4 As explained\\nbelow, Appellees were properly granted summary judgment as to each of these claims.\\n\\n A. Warrantless Entry\\n\\n “It is a ‘basic principle of Fourth Amendment law’ that searches and seizures inside a\\nhome without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable.” Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573,\\n585 (1980) (quotation omitted). “[T]he physical entry of the home is the chief evil against which\\nthe wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed.” Id. (quoting United States v. U.S. Dist.\\nCourt, 407 U.S. 297, 313 (1972)). Because the officers in this case entered the home without a\\nwarrant and without permission, their entry was unlawful unless it falls into an exception to this\\ngeneral rule. We conclude that the officers’ entry was justified under the exigent-circumstances\\nexception.5\\n\\n “Exigent circumstances are situations where real[,] immediate[,] and serious\\nconsequences will certainly occur if the police officer postpones action to obtain a warrant.”\\n\\n 4Initially,\\n Ms. Baker also claimed that the officers violated Kyle’s Fifth Amendment rights by refusing to\\nleave the home when Kyle refused to speak with them. However, she has abandoned this claim and we will not\\nconsider it.\\n 5Because we find that exigent circumstances justified the officers’ entry, we do not address Appellees’\\nsecond argued basis for the warrantless entry—the community caretaker exception, which applies when officers are\\nnot engaged in “traditional law enforcement functions.” See United States v. Rohrig, 98 F.3d 1506, 1521 (6th Cir.\\n1996).\\n\\f No. 18-2181 Baker v. City of Trenton, et al. Page 8\\n\\n\\nThacker v. City of Columbus, 328 F.3d 244, 253 (6th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks and\\ncitations omitted). There are four recognized situations where exigent circumstances allow a\\nwarrantless entry: “(1) hot pursuit of a fleeing felon, (2) imminent destruction of evidence,\\n(3) the need to prevent a suspect’s escape, and (4) a risk of danger to the police or others.”\\nUnited States v. Rohrig, 98 F.3d 1506, 1515 (6th Cir. 1996). Baker argues that the first three\\ncircumstances do not apply here. Kyle was not a fleeing felon, no one believed him to be in the\\nprocess of destroying evidence, and he was not a suspect attempting escape. Appellees do not\\ndispute these points. Thus, our analysis focuses on the risk of danger.\\n\\n “Under the exigent circumstances exception concerning the threat of violence to officers\\nor others, police officers ‘may enter a home without a warrant to render emergency assistance to\\nan injured occupant or to protect an occupant from imminent injury.’” Goodwin v. City of\\nPainesville, 781 F.3d 314, 332 (6th Cir. 2015) (quoting Schreiber v. Moe, 596 F.3d 323, 329–30\\n(6th Cir. 2010)). We use an objective test to analyze the circumstances that gave rise to a\\nwarrantless entry: “An action is ‘reasonable’ under the Fourth Amendment, regardless of the\\nindividual officer’s state of mind, ‘as long as the circumstances, viewed objectively, justify [the]\\naction.’” Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 404 (2006) (quoting Scott v. United States, 436\\nU.S. 128, 138 (1978)). As applied to the danger-to-police-or-others exception, a lawful\\nwarrantless entry requires “an objectively reasonable basis for believing . . . that a person within\\nthe house is in need of immediate aid.” Goodwin, 781 F.3d at 332 (quoting Michigan v. Fisher,\\n558 U.S. 45, 47 (2009)). More specifically, this standard requires us to determine whether “a\\nreasonable person [would] believe that the entry was necessary to prevent physical harm to the\\nofficers or other persons.” Brigham City, 547 U.S. at 402 (citation omitted) (alteration in\\noriginal).\\n\\n The facts here indicate that a reasonable person in the officers’ position would indeed\\nbelieve that entry was necessary to prevent physical harm. The reasonableness standard of the\\nFourth Amendment requires us to examine the officers’ actions in response to the information\\nthey had been given. When those officers arrived at the house, they had only the information\\nthey received from the dispatcher. Based on that information, they could have reasonably\\nbelieved that Ms. Baker was inside with Kyle, that he was armed in some fashion, with the knife\\n\\f No. 18-2181 Baker v. City of Trenton, et al. Page 9\\n\\n\\nor the shotgun, or both, and that he was threatening her. We have previously considered similar\\ncases.\\n\\n In Schreiber v. Moe, 596 F.3d 323 (6th Cir. 2010), we considered the case of a police\\nofficer, William Moe, who entered a home without a warrant in response to a dispatch message\\nfrom the police station. In that case, an anonymous 911 caller6 reported a case of domestic abuse\\nin the home of James Warren Schreiber. Id. at 326. The message was relayed to Moe (via a\\nmessage sent to his in-car computer, id. at 326 n.1) and indicated that there was “a risk of\\nphysical harm to a person at the scene.” Id. at 326. There was a dispute over what Moe\\nobserved when he arrived at the home—Moe testified that he saw both Schreiber and Schreiber’s\\nteenage daughter Sarah, who was the alleged victim of domestic abuse, whereas Schreiber\\ntestified that the only person that Moe could have seen was Schreiber himself. Id. In any event,\\nMoe entered Schreiber’s home without a warrant and against Schreiber’s wishes, and a physical\\naltercation between the two ensued. Schreiber subsequently sued Moe under § 1983 for\\nexcessive force and warrantless entry. Id. at 328.\\n\\n Moe argued that exigent circumstances justified his entry into the home, and we agreed.\\nEven if Schreiber was correct on the disputed factual point—that is, even if Moe could see only\\nSchreiber, and not Sarah—“Moe’s inability to see Sarah would have made it reasonable for him\\nto investigate so that he could confirm that Sarah was okay.” Id. at 331. We pointed out that\\n“[o]fficers do not need ironclad proof of a likely serious, life-threatening injury to invoke the\\nemergency aid exception . . . . [I]t sufficed . . . that it was reasonable to believe that” a victim\\nwas about to be or had already been hurt. Id. (first alteration in original) (internal citations and\\nquotation marks omitted). Further, we held that Moe committed no violation by remaining in the\\nhome even after he determined that Sarah was physically safe. Id. We pointed out that “a\\nwarrantless intrusion into a home must not exceed the exigency that permits it,” id.; however,\\nonce Moe was inside the home, “Schreiber was on the brink of violence and . . . even if . . . Sarah\\n\\n 6Ms. Baker notes that Schreiber involved a 911 call, but the instant case does not. See Appellant Br. at 35.\\nMs. Baker explains that 911 is “reserved for emergency calls, primarily calls about immediate danger.” Id. Here, of\\ncourse, instead of calling 911, Collin physically went to the police station to make his report. This distinction is not\\nlegally relevant, because the original source of the dispatcher’s information does not affect our analysis of how a\\nreasonable officer—who received the information from a dispatch, not from the original source—would act in\\nresponse to the information.\\n\\f No. 18-2181 Baker v. City of Trenton, et al. Page 10\\n\\n\\nwas at that point unharmed, a continued police presence was required for a time to prevent any\\nfuture harm.” Id.\\n\\n The circumstances in the instant case are similar. Because of the language of the initial\\ndispatch, the officers could reasonably believe that Ms. Baker was in the home with Kyle and\\nthat he was threatening her. They also had been informed that Kyle possessed a knife and had\\nrecently purchased a shotgun. From outside the home, the officers could not communicate with\\nanyone inside. Additionally, while they were at the home (and before they entered) the officers\\nwere updated with a dispatch stating that attempts to call the house were getting only busy\\nsignals. These facts did not dispel them of the notion that Ms. Baker was inside, with Kyle. And\\nbecause Officer Cheplick’s conversation with Mr. Baker did not occur until after the officers had\\nentered the home, it was not part of the mix of information they had to rely upon in deciding\\nwhether to enter. Based on the information that had been conveyed to them, those officers, upon\\narriving at the house and examining the scene from outside (coupled with the update from the\\nstation), reasonably could have determined, like the officers in Schreiber, that they needed more\\ninformation to determine the proper course of action. The situation impelled further\\ninvestigation, and reasonable officers would have believed that “serious consequences [would]\\ncertainly occur if [they] postpone[d] action to obtain a warrant.” Thacker, 328 F.3d at 253.\\n\\n Given these circumstances—that the officers could reasonably believe based on the\\ndispatch that Kyle was in the home with his mother, and that he was armed and threatening her—\\na reasonable jury could only conclude that the officers were justified in entering the home to\\ndetermine that Ms. Baker was safe. And once the officers were inside, given Kyle’s erratic\\nbehavior and the fact that he was armed with a lawnmower blade, no reasonable jury could fault\\nthe officers for remaining in the home.\\n\\n Ms. Baker attempts to argue to the contrary that exigent circumstances did not justify the\\nentry because Kyle posed no risk of danger to the police or others. She is certainly correct to\\npoint out that before the warrantless entry, Kyle did not in reality pose any risk to her. However,\\nshe is incorrect insofar as she argues that the officers should have known that Kyle posed no risk\\nof injury to others. While it is true that Ms. Baker was not in the house with Kyle, the\\nundisputed facts demonstrate that the officers reasonably believed that she was present.\\n\\f No. 18-2181 Baker v. City of Trenton, et al. Page 11\\n\\n\\nWe must analyze the actions of those officers on the scene by reference to a reasonable\\nunderstanding of the information that they actually received. As noted, their actions were\\nreasonable in light of what they reasonably could have understood was happening in the house.\\n\\n For these reasons, we find that the officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment by their\\nwarrantless entry. Having found no constitutional violation, we need not examine the second\\nprong of qualified immunity (whether the right was clearly established at the time of the\\nviolation). We therefore AFFIRM the decision of the district court as to the warrantless entry.\\n\\n B. Excessive Force\\n\\n Ms. Baker’s second claim is that Driscoll violated Kyle’s rights under the Fourth\\nAmendment by using excessive force to subdue him. We examine excessive-force claims under\\nan objective-reasonableness standard: “the question is whether the officers’ actions are\\n‘objectively reasonable’ in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard\\nto their underlying intent or motivation.” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396–97 (1989).\\nThis test is dependent on the facts of the individual case, most importantly “whether the suspect\\nposes an immediate threat to the safety of officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting\\narrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.” Id. at 396. A police officer “may not use deadly\\nforce against a citizen unless ‘the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a\\nsignificant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.’” Sova v. City of Mt.\\nPleasant, 142 F.3d 898, 902–03 (6th Cir. 1998) (quoting Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 3\\n(1985)). Thus, the question here is whether the facts, taken in the light most favorable to Ms.\\nBaker, would allow a jury to determine that Driscoll lacked probable cause to believe that Kyle\\nposed a significant threat of death or serious physical injury.\\n\\n The following facts are not in dispute: at the moment of the shooting, 1) Kyle was\\nholding a lawnmower blade, 2) he was advancing or had partially advanced up the stairs towards\\nDriscoll, 3) Driscoll had fallen backwards onto the stairs or a landing on the stairs, and was in a\\nseated or semi-seated position, and 4) Kyle actually struck Driscoll with the lawnmower blade.\\nWe must judge these facts “from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than\\n\\f No. 18-2181 Baker v. City of Trenton, et al. Page 12\\n\\n\\nwith the 20/20 vision of hindsight.” Graham, 490 U.S. at 396. Given these facts, no reasonable\\njury could find for Ms. Baker.\\n\\n Chappell v. City of Cleveland, 585 F.3d 901 (6th Cir. 2009) is instructive. That case\\narose from a police shooting of an armed adolescent. Id. There, two Cleveland police officers\\nexecuted a search warrant at the residence of a suspected armed robber. Id. at 904. In the course\\nof executing the warrant, the officers conducted a protective sweep of the premises. Id. During\\nthe protective sweep, the officers entered a bedroom that they believed to be unoccupied. Id. at\\n905. After they entered the room, however, they discovered fifteen-year-old Brandon McCloud\\n(the suspected robber) hiding in the closet. Id. The officers ordered McCloud to exit the closet\\nand show his hands. Id. When McCloud came out of the closet, he was carrying a knife. Id.\\nMcCloud moved toward the officers, ignoring their commands to stop, and they fired, killing\\nhim. Id. Subsequently, McCloud’s grandmother sued on his behalf under § 1983, alleging that\\nthe officers used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Id. The officers sought\\nsummary judgment on the ground that their actions were shielded by qualified immunity, but the\\ndistrict court denied their motion. Id.\\n\\n On appeal, we determined that the district court erred and that the defendants were\\nentitled to summary judgment. As we explained, the key factual question was “whether\\nMcCloud posed a serious and immediate threat of harm.” Id. at 909. Although the district court\\nhad determined that the record of that case presented a genuine dispute as to that question, we\\ndisagreed:\\n\\n The knife-wielding suspect was undisputedly moving toward the officers and had\\n closed to within five to seven feet in a dark, cluttered, enclosed space. Both\\n detectives were backed up against a wall in the small bedroom and there was no\\n ready means of retreat or escape. Considering McCloud’s stature (5’7”, 165 lbs.)\\n and the size of the knife (described and depicted in photograph as a standard\\n “steak knife” with serrated edge), it is apparent that if the detectives had hesitated\\n one instant, i.e., long enough to allow McCloud to take even one more step, they\\n would have been within his arm’s reach and vulnerable to serious or even fatal\\n injury. These undisputed circumstances clearly support probable cause to believe\\n that serious harm was imminently threatened and that use of deadly force in self-\\n defense was justified.\\n\\nId. at 911.\\n\\f No. 18-2181 Baker v. City of Trenton, et al. Page 13\\n\\n\\n The similarities between the relevant facts in Chappell and those here are striking. Both\\ncircumstances involved victims bearing bladed weapons, who approached officers in a narrow,\\nconfined space, moved within about six feet of the officers, and were shot and killed by the\\nofficers. In the instant case (unlike the deceased in Chappell), Kyle actually landed a blow upon\\nthe police officer before he was shot. There is some dispute about the actual distance between\\nKyle and Driscoll at the moment of the shooting, and whether Driscoll fired upward or\\ndownward. Appellees assert that Kyle was standing directly over Driscoll at the time of the\\nshooting, and that the officer fired upward defensively. By contrast, Ms. Baker asserts that Kyle\\nwas seven feet away from Driscoll, who fired down the stairs at Kyle. Even crediting Ms.\\nBaker’s version of the facts, Kyle was within the same five-to-seven-foot zone as the victim in\\nChappell, had already cut Driscoll once with a lawnmower blade, and could have immediately\\npressed home another assault, perhaps with fatal results. Even on Ms. Baker’s version of the\\nfacts, no reasonable jury could find that Driscoll used excessive force.\\n\\n Ms. Baker urges us to distinguish Chappell from the facts here. She emphasizes that the\\nvictim in Chappell was a suspected armed robber, that the officers in Chappell had obtained a\\nwarrant before entering, and that the officers in Chappell had no means of retreat, whereas\\nDriscoll “could have readily retreated, just as the other officers had.” Appellant Br. at 47. Baker\\nurges us instead to analogize the instant case to Bletz v. Gribble, 641 F.3d 743 (6th Cir. 2011).\\n\\n In Bletz, two police officers were sued for excessive force after shooting Fred Bletz\\nduring the execution of a warrant. Id. at 747. The officers had a warrant for failure to appear\\nagainst Zachary Bletz, who was the son of, and lived with, Fred Bletz. Id. When Zachary\\nanswered the door and stepped outside to talk with the officers, they told him they were there to\\narrest him for failure to appear. Id. at 747–48. However, because Zachary was wearing slippers,\\nthe police allowed him to re-enter the house to put on more appropriate footwear before taking\\nhim to jail. Id. at 748. When the officers followed Zachary into the house, they encountered\\nFred, who was holding a handgun. Id. The officers ordered Fred to put the weapon down. He\\nallegedly was lowering his weapon when the officers fired, killing him. Id.\\n\\f No. 18-2181 Baker v. City of Trenton, et al. Page 14\\n\\n\\n When the decedent’s estate sued under § 1983, the district court denied summary\\njudgment to the defendants on qualified immunity grounds. Id. at 749. On appeal, we affirmed\\nthe denial of qualified immunity. Id. In so doing, we distinguished Bletz from Chappell:\\n\\n There are . . . several key differences between the facts in Chappell and\\n the instant case. In Chappell, the officers had certain knowledge that the suspect\\n had engaged in prior armed robberies using a knife. Here, there was no\\n imputation of past or potential future violence on the part of Fred. In Chappell,\\n the officers were in a small room with no opportunity to retreat. Here, the officers\\n were in a breezeway, only feet away from the outside and, arguably, safety. In\\n Chappell, the subject had advanced to within five to seven feet and was\\n apparently lunging forward with a knife. Here, Fred was fifteen feet away and\\n was allegedly lowering his weapon.\\n Most importantly, in Chappell, “[n]one of [the] facts [were] refuted by\\n physical or circumstantial evidence and none [were] disputed by contrary\\n testimony. In fact, there [were] no other witnesses who could testify to the\\n circumstances facing the detectives in the bedroom immediately before they fired\\n their weapons.” In contrast, here, plaintiff’s allegations rest not only on the\\n eyewitness testimony of Zachary, but also on the differences of the testimony and\\n actions of the two defendants.\\n\\nBletz, 631 F.3d at 753 (internal citations omitted). Ms. Baker asserts that this case is more like\\nBletz than Chappell. We disagree.\\n\\n It is true that Kyle, unlike the deceased who was a previous armed robber in Chappell,\\nhad not engaged in any known prior violent criminal acts before his encounter with the police.\\nHowever, the responding officers could reasonably believe from the dispatch that Kyle had\\nthreatened his mother and they knew he had shouted obscenities at them and was erratically\\nswinging a lethal object. And unlike the officer in Bletz, Driscoll had just been struck by a\\npotentially lethal object, and faced the risk of being struck again. Unlike in Bletz, there was no\\nevidence from which a reasonable jury could find that the person who confronted the police was\\nputting his weapon down. Furthermore, although his fellow officers had successfully retreated,\\nDriscoll was in no position to back away from the encounter, as was the case for the officers in\\nBletz. Driscoll had fallen down and was in a vulnerable position. Because Kyle was armed and\\nwas at that moment engaged in violence against Driscoll (and further, because previous attempts\\nto nonlethally subdue Kyle had failed), Driscoll justifiably acted in self-defense.\\n\\f No. 18-2181 Baker v. City of Trenton, et al. Page 15\\n\\n\\n Given that Driscoll had probable cause to believe that Kyle would cause death or serious\\ninjury, his use of deadly force was not a violation of Kyle’s rights under the Fourth Amendment.\\nOnce again, finding no constitutional violation on this count, we need not examine the second\\nprong of qualified immunity. We therefore AFFIRM the district court’s grant of summary\\njudgment on the excessive-force claim.\\n\\n C. Municipal Liability\\n\\n Municipalities may be held liable under § 1983 for constitutional violations committed by\\ntheir employees if the violations result from municipal practices or policies. Monell v. Dep’t of\\nSoc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978). However, where there has been no showing of individual\\nconstitutional violations on the part of the officers involved, there can be no municipal liability.\\nSee Watkins v. City of Battle Creek, 273 F.3d 682, 687 (6th Cir. 2001) (“If no constitutional\\nviolation by the individual defendants is established, the municipal defendant[s] cannot be held\\nliable under § 1983.”). Because Ms. Baker has not shown that the individual officers committed\\nany constitutional violation, her claims against the City of Trenton must also fail. Accordingly,\\nwe AFFIRM the district court’s grant of summary judgment as to the municipal liability claim\\nas well.\\n\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n\\n The facts which gave rise to this case are tragic. However, for the foregoing reasons, we\\nAFFIRM the decision of the district court.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3763,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4657797,"string":"4,657,797"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"United States v. Michael Clayton"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-08-30"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-2237"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before: SUTTON, GRIFFIN, and READLER, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"CHAD A. READLER, Circuit Judge\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0223p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ┐\\n Plaintiff-Appellee, │\\n │\\n > No. 18-2237\\n v. │\\n │\\n │\\n MICHAEL ANTHONY CLAYTON, │\\n Defendant-Appellant. │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids.\\n No. 1:17-cr-00230-1—Janet T. Neff, District Judge.\\n\\n Decided and Filed: August 30, 2019\\n\\n Before: SUTTON, GRIFFIN, and READLER, Circuit Judges.\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nON BRIEF: Kenneth P. Tableman, KENNETH P. TABLEMAN, P.C., Grand Rapids,\\nMichigan, for Appellant. Davin M. Reust, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Grand\\nRapids, Michigan, for Appellee.\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n CHAD A. READLER, Circuit Judge. For over five decades, the Supreme Court’s\\npronouncement in Miranda v. Arizona has informed the decision-making process for suspected\\ncriminals in the custody of law enforcement. Chief among the decisions facing a suspect in\\ncustody are whether to speak to investigators and whether to seek legal advice. To inform these\\nchoices, Miranda requires that a suspect be advised by investigators of, among other things, his\\n\\f No. 18-2237 United States v. Clayton Page 2\\n\\n\\nright to “remain silent” and his “right to counsel.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 473\\n(1966). Those critical features of Miranda ensure that a suspect understands, before being\\nquestioned, that he is not required to talk to interrogating officers and that he has the right to\\nconsult a lawyer regarding any anticipated interrogation.\\n\\n Those fundamental aspects of Miranda were honored here. All agree that the Miranda\\nwarning given to Defendant Michael Clayton omitted one element of the traditional warning\\nutilized by the Battle Creek, Michigan Police Department—that a suspect has the right to have\\nhis attorney with him “during questioning.” But that message was still conveyed to Clayton. In\\nbeing informed of his right to counsel, Clayton was told that the right begins at the outset, before\\nany questioning. That and the fact that “[n]othing in the words used indicated that counsel’s\\npresence would be restricted [during] questioning,” undermine Clayton’s argument. Florida v.\\nPowell, 559 U.S. 50, 63 (2010). We accordingly reject his Miranda challenge. We also reject\\nClayton’s challenge to his sentence and AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.\\n\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n\\n Michael Clayton was convicted and sentenced to life in prison for sexually exploiting\\nthree young women, each of them minors. The allegations against him were disturbing and\\ngraphic. Clayton often used drugs to facilitate this abuse. His most frequent victim, J.P., was a\\nvulnerable minor with a drug addiction.\\n\\nA. Clayton Sexually Exploits J.P.\\n\\n From an early age, J.P. struggled to overcome her addiction to drugs. In an effort to kick\\nthe habit, she moved away from Michigan. She was only fifteen years old at the time.\\n\\n J.P. returned to Michigan a year later. Almost immediately, she met Clayton through a\\nmutual friend, H.K., also a minor. Clayton and his friend Ramiro Hernandez met up with J.P.\\nand H.K. one evening at Clayton’s house. Clayton asked J.P. her age, and she told him she was\\nsixteen. The group smoked marijuana and drank alcohol. Clayton also supplied the girls with\\ncocaine. And at some point that night, Clayton had sex with J.P.\\n\\f No. 18-2237 United States v. Clayton Page 3\\n\\n\\n This pattern of conduct continued over the next two weeks: Clayton would invite J.P.\\nover to his house, give her cocaine, and have sex with her. Clayton was clear in his expectations\\nof J.P.: cocaine in exchange for sex. Clayton recorded the sex acts on his iPhone, often\\npublishing them on Snapchat, a social media application where users can exchange photos,\\nvideos, and texts. In the fourteen days that Clayton knew J.P. he recorded twenty-seven sexually\\nexplicit videos of her.\\n\\n During this same period, Clayton also began introducing J.P. to other men. The first was\\nFreddie Cruz. One evening when Cruz arrived at Clayton’s home, J.P. was handed a small plate\\nwith cocaine on it, which she was told was from Cruz. Clayton asked J.P. to turn around while\\nthe two men commented on her body and negotiated a price. Cruz then left.\\n\\n Later that evening, Carlos Duran visited Clayton’s home. As he did with Cruz, Clayton\\nnegotiated with Duran a price for J.P.—$100. Duran then took J.P. to the bedroom and had sex\\nwith her while Clayton stood by with a gun. Clayton kept the money paid by Duran.\\n\\n One day during this disturbing sequence of events, J.P.’s nose started bleeding, and she\\nasked to take a break from using cocaine. Clayton became suspicious and asked J.P. why she\\nwas stopping. She told him that she felt sick. Ignoring her answer, Clayton asked again. He\\nthen left the room. When he returned, he was holding a gun. Clayton loaded the gun and gave\\nJ.P. specific instructions: “[O]kay, this is what we are going to do. I’m going to take this plate\\nof coke and we are going to go in the bedroom and we are going to have sex.” J.P. did as she\\nwas instructed.\\n\\nB. Law Enforcement Intervenes, Finding A Terrified J.P. Hidden In Clayton’s Basement.\\n\\n That night, a frightened J.P. texted her father while at Clayton’s house. She was being\\nheld against her will, she said, and she believed that her life was in danger. Fear-stricken, her\\nfather called the Battle Creek Police Department, notifying them of J.P.’s texts.\\n\\n The police and J.P.’s father raced to Clayton’s house, and the police announced their\\npresence upon arrival. Clayton’s roommate, Blake Robbins, answered the door. He told the\\nofficers J.P. had left with her friend, H.K., about thirty minutes earlier. At that moment, J.P.’s\\n\\f No. 18-2237 United States v. Clayton Page 4\\n\\n\\nfather received another text. J.P. alerted him that she was still in the house. The officers stormed\\ninside. They found Clayton and, with him, a potpourri of criminality: two loaded guns, a set\\nof brass knuckles, cocaine powder, marijuana, and drug paraphernalia. But they could not\\nimmediately locate J.P. Upon reaching the basement, the officers finally found J.P., traumatized\\nand hysterical. J.P. would later testify that she had been forced into the basement in an effort to\\nconceal her presence. Officers took J.P. to the hospital, took Clayton and Robbins into custody,\\nand arrested Hernandez not long after.\\n\\nC. While In Custody, Clayton Is Questioned By Law Enforcement.\\n\\n When Clayton arrived at the station, officers seized his phone and began questioning him.\\nDetective Sutherland conducted the interrogations. Before any questioning, Sutherland read\\nClayton his Miranda rights from a standard form used by the Battle Creek Police Department.\\nSutherland told Clayton:\\n\\n Before we ask you any questions, you must understand\\n your rights.\\n - You have the right to remain silent.\\n - Anything you say can and will be used against you in\\n court.\\n - You have the right to talk to a lawyer before we ask you\\n any questions.\\n Clayton: Ok.\\n Det. Sutherland: If you cannot afford to have a lawyer, one will be appointed\\n for you before any questioning if you wish.\\n Do you understand your rights?\\n Clayton: Yes, sir.\\n\\n In giving these warnings, Sutherland misread the third Miranda warning concerning the\\nright to counsel. Sutherland tracked the part of the form that states “[y]ou have the right to talk\\nto a lawyer before we ask you any questions”—but omitted the following clause of the\\nwarning—“and to have him/her with you during questioning.” (emphasis added). Sutherland\\noffered Clayton the form and asked Clayton to sign it, but Clayton refused.\\n\\f No. 18-2237 United States v. Clayton Page 5\\n\\n\\n After the interview and a subsequent break, Sutherland interviewed Clayton again. He\\ndid not re-read to Clayton any aspect of the Miranda warnings. Each of the interviews lasted\\nthirty minutes or less. In neither session did Clayton provide any material statements.\\n\\n Clayton was interviewed again the following day, this time by Homeland Security\\nInvestigations Special Agent Williams and Battle Creek Police Detective Bush. At the outset of\\nthat interview, Williams stated: “It’s my understanding that you were read Miranda, and you’re\\ngood to go. You still want to talk because this is your lifeline?” Clayton responded\\nenthusiastically: “Hell yeah I want to f[***]ing talk.”\\n\\n During the interview, Clayton admitted to having sex with J.P., who he said he believed\\nwas seventeen years old, and to producing a Snapchat video of the encounter. He also claimed\\nthat J.P.’s friend, H.K., was responsible for prostituting J.P. He provided the officers with the\\npassword to unlock his cellphone. During the course of the interview, which lasted about an\\nhour, Clayton claimed he was “freaking out.”\\n\\n After his initial interview with Clayton, Sutherland interviewed J.P. During the\\ninterview, which took place at the hospital, J.P. explained that over the course of two weeks,\\nClayton repeatedly gave her cocaine, had sex with her, and made sexually explicit recordings of\\nher with his phone, many of which she said were stored on his Snapchat account. J.P. provided\\nSutherland with Clayton’s username to his Snapchat account. J.P. also had a physical exam.\\nClayton’s DNA was found on her underwear and anal/perianal area.\\n\\n Following this series of interviews, Williams acquired search warrants for Clayton’s\\ncellphone, Facebook account, and Snapchat account. On those platforms, officers found\\napproximately thirty-seven videos of Clayton engaging in sex acts with minors. J.P. was\\nfeatured in twenty-seven videos, H.K. in seven, and a third victim, K.P., in three. Clayton’s\\nSnapchat account also contained four videos of him displaying and weighing cocaine and two of\\nhim holding a firearm. In addition to the digital evidence discovered on Snapchat, officers\\ndiscovered text messages by Clayton and Hernandez discussing the trafficking of J.P.\\n\\f No. 18-2237 United States v. Clayton Page 6\\n\\n\\nD. Clayton Is Charged With Sexually Exploiting And Trafficking Underage Girls.\\n\\n In an eight-count superseding indictment, Clayton was charged with conspiracy to exploit\\na minor; sexual exploitation of minors J.P., H.K., and K.P.; sex trafficking a minor; conspiracy to\\ndistribute cocaine; and being a felon in possession of firearms. The superseding indictment also\\ncharged Hernandez.\\n\\n Clayton moved to suppress the statements he made during his interviews with Sutherland\\nand Williams and the evidence arising therefrom. After a hearing, the district court denied\\nClayton’s motion. The case was then set for a jury trial.\\n\\n Trial lasted three days. Over the course of the trial, the government presented substantial\\nevidence against Clayton. Much of it was directed at Clayton’s sexual exploitation of minors:\\n\\n • J.P. testified about her sexual encounters with Clayton.\\n • Duran testified that he paid Clayton so that he could have sex with J.P.\\n • A forensic technician testified that she recovered Clayton’s DNA from J.P.’s\\n underwear and genital region.\\n • Hernandez and J.P. both testified that Clayton took videos of underage girls and\\n uploaded them onto Snapchat.\\n • H.K.’s mother testified that several Snapchat videos recovered from Clayton’s\\n account revealed Clayton sexually exploiting her daughter.\\n • Sutherland testified about the videos and text messages recovered from Clayton,\\n Robbins, Hernandez, and J.P.’s phones.\\n • Sutherland described the recordings of the minors performing sex acts, which were\\n found on Clayton’s phone and Snapchat account.\\n\\n The victims of Clayton’s sexual misconduct, however, were not limited to J.P. and H.K.\\nThe jury also heard testimony that just a month before he met J.P., Clayton had engaged in\\nsimilar misconduct with another minor, K.P. K.P. testified that she was fifteen years old when\\nClayton reached out to her on Facebook. She had seen him around Battle Creek, and he knew\\nsome of her family. Over Facebook, Clayton asked K.P. how old she was, and she told him that\\nshe was fifteen. Clayton then invited K.P. to his house. The first time she visited, they watched\\na movie. The second time, Clayton tried to get K.P. to use cocaine, but she refused. The two\\nhad sex, and Clayton recorded the episode.\\n\\f No. 18-2237 United States v. Clayton Page 7\\n\\n\\n K.P. visited Clayton five more times. Each time, they engaged in sex acts, and he\\nrecorded them. Like Clayton’s recordings of acts with other minors, videos of K.P. were also\\nfound on his phone and Snapchat account. K.P. kept going back to Clayton, she told the jury,\\nbecause she was afraid of him. He would threaten her with a gun and tell her that if she ever left\\nhim or refused to have sex with him, he would kill her. Clayton sent her a video in which he was\\nsaying the same thing.\\n\\n Other evidence detailed Clayton’s activities related to drugs and guns. Among the more\\nsignificant evidence: Hernandez and J.P. testified that Clayton sold cocaine and owned guns.\\nVideos depicted Clayton talking about dealing large quantities of drugs. And a crime technician\\ntestified that he collected cocaine and two firearms from Clayton’s house.\\n\\nE. Clayton Is Convicted And Sentenced To Life In Prison.\\n\\n Clayton was convicted on all counts. The ensuing presentence report calculated\\nClayton’s offense level as 53. The offense level was reduced to 43 in accordance with Chapter\\n5, Part A of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which states that when a total offense level\\ncalculation exceeds 43, the offense level is treated as a level 43. U.S.S.G. ch. 5, pt. A, cmt. n.2.\\nClayton’s criminal history was calculated as category IV due to his prior convictions for\\ndomestic violence, assault, battery, and being a felon in possession of a firearm.\\n\\n Clayton sought a downward variance on the basis of his history of mental-health issues.\\nClayton claimed to exhibit mental-health and behavioral problems throughout his lifetime. Since\\na young age, Clayton had received mental-health treatment and social security benefits. Despite\\nthese obstacles, he managed to graduate from high school and attend some college. In his\\ntwenties, Clayton was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. But he never\\nconsistently took the medications prescribed, claiming they made him feel like a “zombie.”\\nClayton claimed these mental-health issues made him susceptible to manipulation by the other\\ndefendants and the victims. Acknowledging all of this, the district court nonetheless denied\\nClayton’s request for a downward variance.\\n\\n Clayton’s criminal history combined with the seriousness of his multiple sexual-\\nexploitation offenses resulted in a Guideline calculation of a sentence of life imprisonment. The\\n\\f No. 18-2237 United States v. Clayton Page 8\\n\\n\\ndistrict court addressed the relevant sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). When\\nconsidering the nature of the offense and the need for deterrence, the court highlighted the\\nseriousness of Clayton’s conduct, which the court characterized as a “horrendous, drug fueled,\\nweapon heavy nightmare.” By contrast, it considered but did not credit Clayton’s claim that his\\nmental-health problems made him susceptible to the victims’ manipulation. Pronouncing\\nClayton’s conduct as some of the worst it had seen in over a decade on the bench, the district\\ncourt sentenced Clayton to life in prison. While serving that sentence, the district court\\nrecommended that Clayton receive mental-health treatment.\\n\\n II. ANALYSIS\\n\\n Clayton’s appeal primarily turns on his invocation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436,\\n479 (1966). He argues he was not properly apprised of his right to the presence of an attorney\\nduring police interrogation, as required by Miranda. It follows, he says, that his admissions to\\nlaw enforcement and any physical evidence obtained therefrom should have been suppressed.\\nHe also argues that his sentence was both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. We\\nreject each of his arguments.\\n\\nA. Clayton Properly Received And Waived His Miranda Rights.\\n\\n From its familiar case-law pedigree to its popularized usage across cinema and television,\\nthe general contours of the “Miranda warning” are well-known. While we sometimes struggle to\\nname high-ranking government officials or even the three branches of government,\\nsee Americans are poorly informed about basic constitutional provisions, Annenberg Pub.\\nPol. Center (Sept. 12, 2017), https://cdn.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/wp-\\ncontent/uploads/2017/09/Civics-survey-Sept-2017-complete.pdf (“Only a quarter of Americans\\n(26 percent) can name all three branches of government.”), many undoubtedly can name one or\\nmore of the four warnings an officer must give before questioning a suspect in custody. They\\nare: (1) you have the right to remain silent, (2) anything you say can be used against you in a\\ncourt of law, (3) you have the right to the presence of an attorney, and (4) if you cannot afford an\\nattorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you would like. Miranda,\\n384 U.S. at 479.\\n\\f No. 18-2237 United States v. Clayton Page 9\\n\\n\\n At issue today are Miranda’s third and fourth warnings: You have the right to the\\npresence of an attorney, and if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed prior to any\\nquestioning if you would like. Id. In advising suspects of their Miranda rights, officers of the\\nBattle Creek Police Department customarily would read from a standard form that followed the\\ntraditional Miranda warning. Police investigators told Clayton the following: “You have the\\nright to talk to a lawyer before we ask you any questions. . . . If you cannot afford to have a\\nlawyer, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish.” That warning did not\\ntrack completely Battle Creek’s standard warning. It omitted the phrase: “and to have him/her\\nwith you during questioning.”\\n\\n Sutherland also provided Clayton with a copy of the Battle Creek form, which accurately\\ndescribed his Miranda rights. In the absence of a proper verbal Miranda warning, receipt of the\\nproper warning in writing might itself be sufficient to inform a suspect of his Miranda rights,\\neven if he does not sign the form (and Clayton did not). See, e.g., United States v. Adams,\\n583 F.3d 457, 467–68 (6th Cir. 2009) (internal citations omitted). All that is required is that the\\nsuspect be informed of his Miranda rights. But the record here is unclear whether Clayton read\\nthe form he was offered. So we are left with the question: Was the verbal warning given to\\nClayton nonetheless sufficient to convey Miranda’s command with respect to the right to\\ncounsel?\\n\\n It was. While the officer in question would have been better served to read the entire\\nMiranda instruction, we do not require any specific formulation of those rights. What we require\\nis a warning that reasonably conveys the rights at issue. Florida v. Powell, 559 U.S. 50, 60\\n(2010) (noting that the “Court has not dictated the words in which the essential information must\\nbe conveyed”) (citing California v. Prysock, 453 U.S. 355, 359 (1981) (per curiam)). With\\nrespect to Miranda’s third and fourth warnings, one way or another, a suspect must be advised\\nthat he has the right to consult counsel, before any questioning, and regardless whether he can\\nafford one. Here, these goals were achieved.\\n\\f No. 18-2237 United States v. Clayton Page 10\\n\\n\\n 1. A Suspect’s Miranda Rights Must Be Reasonably Conveyed.\\n\\n Miranda’s warnings aim “to ensure that an accused is advised of and understands the\\nright to remain silent and the right to counsel.” Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370, 383\\n(2010). With respect to the right to counsel specifically, Miranda defines that right to include\\nboth “the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with [you] during interrogation.”\\n384 U.S. at 471.\\n\\n Warnings need not be formulaic. Powell, 559 U.S. at 60; Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S.\\n195, 202–03 (1989); Prysock, 453 U.S. at 359–60. Indeed, there is no “talismanic incantation”\\nofficers must follow. Prysock, 453 U.S at 359. Rather, what officers must do is warn a suspect\\nin a manner that, to invoke a baseball analogy, “touch[es] all of the bases” reasonably to convey\\nto a suspect his rights under Miranda. Duckworth, 492 U.S. at 203. With some play in the\\njoints, courts should not “examine Miranda warnings as if construing a will or defining the terms\\nof an easement.” Id. Instead, our test is a practical one: Would a suspect hearing the warnings\\nreasonably understand his options regarding interrogation?\\n\\n Making that practicality inquiry, however, is not without its challenges. By way of\\nbackground, when the Supreme Court embarked down the path of required Miranda warnings, it\\nexpected this approach would “obviate[] the need for a case-by-case inquiry into the actual\\nvoluntariness of the admissions of the accused.” Prysock, 453 U.S. at 359 (citation omitted).\\nBut one case-by-case inquiry replaced another. Today, courts are often asked to decide whether\\nvariations of the Miranda warning are constitutionally sufficient. So rather than inquiring into\\nthe circumstances surrounding a particular defendant’s interrogation, as was the case pre-\\nMiranda, courts now engage in linguistic exercises over the hypothetical prejudice caused by a\\nvariation in some aspect of the warning. See, e.g., United States v. Crumpton, 824 F.3d 593,\\n605–06 (6th Cir. 2016) (finding sufficient a warning that informed a suspect of his right to\\nremain silent and that failing to do so would result in his statements being used against him even\\nwithout the phrase “in court”). That being the case, we now take up this linguistic examination.\\n\\f No. 18-2237 United States v. Clayton Page 11\\n\\n\\n 2. To Be Valid, Miranda’s Instruction Regarding The Right To Counsel Must Be\\n Understood From A “Commonsense Reading” Of The Warning Given To The Suspect.\\n\\n With respect to the right-to-counsel aspects of Miranda, the Supreme Court in Florida v.\\nPowell clarified what type of warnings sufficiently convey that right to an individual in custody.\\n559 U.S. at 60–63. In Powell, a Florida police officer told a suspect: “You have the right to talk\\nto a lawyer before answering any of our questions. If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one\\nwill be appointed for you without cost and before any questioning. You have the right to use any\\nof these rights at any time you want during this interview.” Id. at 54. The Florida Supreme\\nCourt deemed this warning misleading because it interpreted “before questioning” as imposing a\\ntime limit on the right to counsel. Id. at 55. That phrasing, the Florida Supreme Court\\nconcluded, erroneously suggested that the suspect (Powell) could consult with an attorney only\\n“before” the interrogation started. Id. “Before” was thus said to define both the beginning—and\\nend—to the right’s duration. Id.\\n\\n The Supreme Court disagreed. The warning, it explained, made clear the seminal right at\\nstake—“the right to talk to a lawyer.” And when the entire instruction was “given a\\ncommonsense reading,” the warning effectively “communicated that the right to counsel carried\\nforward to and through the interrogation . . . .” Id. at 63. Nothing in the warning, the Supreme\\nCourt observed, indicated that the right expired once questioning began. Id. at 62. The phrase\\n“before any questioning,” which had troubled the Florida Supreme Court, was seemingly\\nmisconstrued by that court. These warnings, said the Supreme Court, merely indicated when that\\nright began, not how long it lasted. Id.\\n\\n Other aspects of the warning further confirmed that Powell was sufficiently advised of\\nthe comprehensive nature of his right to counsel. The warning at issue in Powell included a\\n“catchall” provision informing the defendant that he had the right to “use any of these rights at\\nany time you want during this interview.” Id. at 55. Read together, the warnings stated that a\\nsuspect had the right to talk to a lawyer before any questions and that he could invoke that right\\nat any point, including during questioning. Id. at 62–63. Of course, “[d]ifferent words were\\nused in the advice Powell received” when compared to Miranda’s precise formulation. Id. at 64.\\nBut, it bears noting, “they communicated the same essential message.” Id.\\n\\f No. 18-2237 United States v. Clayton Page 12\\n\\n\\n For these reasons, the instruction in Powell was not likely to confuse a reasonable\\nlistener. To conclude that the right to counsel during questioning did not exist based upon the\\nlanguage used in Powell’s warning, the Supreme Court reasoned, would be “to imagine an\\nunlikely scenario.” Id. at 62. After all, the right to counsel “at any time” would naturally include\\nduring any questioning or other interrogation. Id. Concluding otherwise would be\\n“counterintuitive.” Id. It would require a scenario where the suspect would need “to hop in and\\nout of the holding area to seek his attorney’s advice” between questions. Id.\\n\\n 3. Clayton’s Warning Regarding The Right To Counsel Satisfied Powell’s “Commonsense\\n Reading” Standard.\\n\\n In approving of the instruction given to the suspect by Florida police officials, Powell\\nlargely resolves the issue before us today. Sutherland told Clayton that he had “the right to talk\\nto a lawyer before we ask you any questions . . . [and] [i]f you cannot afford to have a lawyer,\\none will be appointed to you before questioning if you wish.” Clayton was thus informed, as\\nwas the suspect in Powell, that he had the right to consult with an attorney, as required by\\nMiranda, and that the right began immediately, before any questions may be asked. That\\n“reasonably conveyed [Clayton’s] right to have an attorney present, not only at the outset of\\ninterrogation, but at all times.” Id. at 62.\\n\\n As in Powell, this phrasing was enough to communicate “the same essential message” as\\nthe warnings approved in Miranda. Id. at 64. In fact, the warning Clayton received was in some\\nrespects more comprehensive than the warning in Miranda. Miranda, it bears reminding, merely\\nrequired that a defendant be informed of his right to “the presence of an attorney.” 384 U.S. at\\n479. To be sure, Miranda clarified that “presence” includes the right to consult with an attorney\\nbefore and during questioning. But Miranda did not require a warning exactly to that effect.\\nCase in point: Miranda acknowledged that the warnings employed by the FBI at the time of its\\ndecision were “consistent with the procedure which we delineate today.” Id. at 483–84. And\\nthose warnings, while advising of the right to counsel, conspicuously did not state expressly that\\ncounsel may be present during interrogation. See id. at 500–01 n.3 (Clark, J., dissenting).\\n\\n That Clayton was informed of a right to counsel “before questioning” (but not given the\\nsame express direction for the period “during questioning”) does not change our conclusion.\\n\\f No. 18-2237 United States v. Clayton Page 13\\n\\n\\nHere again, we lean on Miranda, which approved of virtually the same phrasing in its parallel\\nuse of the word “prior.” “Prior to any questioning” was the way Miranda articulated the right to\\nappointed counsel. Id. at 479. Miranda itself treated “prior” as an indication of the right’s\\nstarting point, not its end. So too for the word “before.”\\n\\n It’s true that the warnings in this case did not contain the same kind of catchall phrase as\\nthe warnings in Powell. 559 U.S. at 54–55 (defining the “catchall” warning as: “[y]ou have the\\nright to use any of these rights at any time you want during this interview” (alteration in\\noriginal)). But that does not change the result here. Like his right to talk to an attorney “before\\nwe ask you any questions,” the officers told Clayton of his right to have an attorney appointed\\n“before any questioning.” This context helps show that the “before” language is triggering in\\nboth instances, rather than limiting. It would be “counterintuitive” to think that both rights\\nkicked in before questioning but terminated the moment the officer started the interrogation. Id.\\nat 62. That’s especially true given that Miranda and Powell read similar language (“prior to”\\nand “before”) as triggering. And, as far as we can tell, since Powell, no court of appeals or state\\nSupreme Court has found this formulation wanting.\\n\\n Our decision here finds itself in good company, and not just the company of Miranda and\\nPowell. A year after Powell was decided, the Florida Supreme Court read Powell the same way\\nwe do today. In Rigterink v. State, the court upheld a warning where the defendant was told he\\nhad the right to an attorney “present prior to questioning.” 66 So. 3d 866, 884 (Fla. 2011). The\\nFlorida Supreme Court found that the use of “prior to” was the same as “before” and merely\\nindicates when the right to counsel begins. Id. at 892–93.\\n\\n Since then, both the Third and Fourth Circuits have upheld warnings less fulsome than\\nthe one Clayton received. Those courts found that the bare warning “you have the right to an\\nattorney,” without any clarifying language, was enough to satisfy Miranda. See United States v.\\nWarren, 642 F.3d 182, 185–87 (3d Cir. 2011); United States v. Nash, 739 F. App’x 762, 765 (4th\\nCir. 2018) (per curiam). In neither instance was the right-to-counsel warning fatally undermined\\nby the absence of an express reference to the right to counsel during interrogation.\\n\\f No. 18-2237 United States v. Clayton Page 14\\n\\n\\n And consider one other aspect of Warren. As just explained, the right-to-counsel\\nwarning there did not contain any qualifying language. But the fourth right—the right to\\nappointed counsel, if the suspect cannot afford one—did. It tracked the language in Miranda:\\n“If you cannot afford to hire an attorney, one will be appointed to represent you without charge\\nbefore any questioning.” Warren, 642 F.3d at 184 (emphasis added). That language, the Third\\nCircuit noted, merely indicated when the right to appointed counsel would start. Id. at 186. It\\ndid not serve to cabin that right to the period before questioning. The same is true here with\\nrespect to Clayton’s instruction regarding the right to counsel before questioning.\\n\\n * * * * *\\n\\n A few final thoughts. One can fairly argue what particular instruction might best convey\\na defendant’s Miranda rights. Clayton has his view, and he may well be correct. But that type\\nof debate is reminiscent of the formalistic quibbling criticized in Duckworth, Prysock, and\\nPowell. As those cases instruct, courts are not in the business of dictating the “precise\\nformulation of the warnings given a criminal defendant.” Prysock, 453 U.S. at 359. Nor are\\ncourts looking to crown the best formulation, declaring all others deficient. Powell, 559 U.S. at\\n63 (“Although the warnings were not the clearest possible formulation of Miranda’s right-to-\\ncounsel advisement, they were sufficiently comprehensive and comprehensible when given a\\ncommonsense reading.”) (emphasis in original). Our job is simply to ask whether a\\n“commonsense reading” of the actual language employed meets the aims of Miranda. See id. at\\n64 (noting that in the Miranda context, “[d]ifferent words” can “communicate[] the same\\nessential message”).\\n\\n That is not to say interrogating officers need not sweat the details. We reiterate what\\nPowell, Warren, and many others have said before. Officers are expected to take the necessary\\nsteps to properly Mirandize a suspect. Skirting the edges puts the issue in our hands, not those of\\nthe interrogators, as today’s case reflects. On this point we note agreement from the United\\nStates. In its brief in Powell, it identified the same concerns and cautioned: “[P]olice can\\nsignificantly reduce the risk that a court will later suppress the suspect’s statement on the ground\\nthat the advice was inadequate.” Id. at 64 (quotations omitted). Here, an officer decided not to\\n\\f No. 18-2237 United States v. Clayton Page 15\\n\\n\\nread the form he held in his hand, opting instead to recite the warnings from memory. His\\nmemory failed him, leaving the ensuing prosecution subject to a Fifth Amendment challenge.\\n\\n In the end, these warnings sufficiently advised Clayton of the scope of his right to\\ncounsel. In the world of Miranda, substance controls form. And here, the substance passes\\nconstitutional muster.\\n\\n 4. Clayton’s Statements Were Voluntary.\\n\\n Regardless whether he was properly Mirandized, Clayton contends that his statements\\nwere nonetheless involuntary, making them and their fruits inadmissible. To determine whether\\na defendant’s statement was voluntary, we ask the following three questions: “(1) Was the\\npolice activity objectively coercive? (2) Was the coercive activity sufficient to overbear the\\ndefendant’s will? and (3) Was ‘the alleged police misconduct . . . the crucial motivating factor in\\nthe defendant’s decision to offer the statement’?” United States v. Scott, 553 F. App’x 555, 558\\n(6th Cir. 2014) (quoting United States v. Mahan, 190 F.3d 416, 422 (6th Cir. 1999)). Relevant\\nfactors in this inquiry include the defendant’s age, education and intelligence, his previous\\ninteractions with the criminal justice system, the length and extent of questioning, and the use of\\nphysical coercion such as deprivation of food or sleep. See Ledbetter v. Edwards, 35 F.3d 1062,\\n1067 (6th Cir. 1994) (citations omitted) (examining these factors as part of the totality of the\\ncircumstances surrounding the making of the statements at issue).\\n\\n Measured on this scale, there is little to suggest Clayton’s statements were anything but\\nvoluntary. Clayton has a high-school education and attended some college; he was able to\\nunderstand the situation he was in and what was being asked of him. When asked if he wanted\\nto speak to Williams, Clayton declared: “Hell yeah I want to f[***]ing talk.” During\\nquestioning, Clayton had the opportunity to respond freely. He used that opportunity to place the\\nblame on others, minimizing his own involvement. Altogether, he was questioned for only about\\ntwo hours, first by Sutherland, then by Williams, with a significant break in between. And this\\nwas not unfamiliar territory for Clayton, given his previous charges and convictions. In sum, we\\nsee no evidence of coercion.\\n\\f No. 18-2237 United States v. Clayton Page 16\\n\\n\\n Clayton disagrees. He portrays as a form of coercion the fact that Williams offered him a\\n“lifeline.” But that “offer” was seemingly nothing more than a suggestion that Clayton might\\nreceive some leniency if he cooperated, a practice that is generally permissible. See, e.g., United\\nStates v. Wiley, 132 F. App’x 635, 640 (6th Cir. 2005). Yes, Clayton may also have been\\n“freaking out.” But that would likely be true of anyone who finds himself the subject of possible\\ncriminal charges—particularly ones as serious as those Clayton faced. And while Clayton has\\nsome history of mental-health issues, nothing about his interrogation suggests he did not\\nunderstand the questions posed or that he otherwise acted in a concerning manner.\\n\\n Our final tally: Clayton received sufficient Miranda warnings, his statements to law\\nenforcement were made voluntarily, and those statements and the related physical evidence were\\nproperly admitted. Clayton’s conviction thus stands.\\n\\nB. Clayton’s Sentence Was Not Procedurally Unreasonable.\\n\\n Turning from his conviction to the sentence imposed for that conviction, Clayton claims\\nthat his within-Guidelines life sentence was procedurally unreasonable.\\n\\n In considering whether a sentence is procedurally unreasonable, our focus lies on how the\\nsentence was calculated. We ask whether the district court properly calculated the Guidelines\\nrange, remembered to treat that range as advisory, and considered the sentencing factors in\\n18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) while refraining from considering impermissible factors. United States v.\\nRayyan, 885 F.3d 436, 440 (6th Cir. 2018) (citing Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007)).\\nTo satisfy our procedural reasonableness inquiry, the district court must have sufficiently\\nexplained its sentence and may not have selected a sentence based upon facts that are clearly\\nerroneous. United States v. Parrish, 915 F.3d 1043, 1047 (6th Cir. 2019), petition for cert. filed,\\n(U.S. July 2, 2019) (No. 19-5123). Ordinarily, we would review Clayton’s claim of procedural\\nunreasonableness for an abuse of discretion. Id. But because Clayton did not object during\\nsentencing, we review his claim only for plain error. United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382, 386\\n(6th Cir. 2008) (en banc).\\n\\n Clayton’s claim falls short either way. In all respects, his life sentence was procedurally\\nreasonable. The sentence was within the Guidelines range. The district court treated that range\\n\\f No. 18-2237 United States v. Clayton Page 17\\n\\n\\nas advisory. It considered all of the § 3553(a) sentencing factors. And it sufficiently explained\\nits sentence.\\n\\n Clayton has two objections, each stemming from the district court’s treatment of his\\nmental-health history. One, the district court failed to grant his request for a downward variance\\nbased upon his mental-health challenges. And two, the district court failed to explain why it also\\nrejected Clayton’s mental-health issues. According to Clayton, his history of “mostly low level”\\nfelonies is attributable to his upbringing and longstanding mental-health issues. Those mental-\\nhealth issues, he adds, allowed him to be manipulated by the other defendants and the victims\\nhere. On these grounds, Clayton claims entitlement to a shorter sentence.\\n\\n Our scope of review, however, is not that encompassing. In the context of a procedural\\nreasonableness challenge, we ask only whether the district court understood its discretion to vary\\ndownwards and whether it adequately addressed Clayton’s mental-health issues raised in that\\nmotion. See Rayyan, 885 F.3d at 440.\\n\\n The district court hit each of these marks. The district court noted Clayton’s mental-\\nhealth-based arguments and then adequately addressed them. It acknowledged Clayton’s mental-\\nhealth history but ultimately did not find that it justified a variance. And the court firmly\\nrejected Clayton’s contention that he was manipulated by others, including his victims. The\\ndistrict court was blunt in its assessment of the latter argument, finding it “almost laughable to\\ntry to place blame on these young girls who were so susceptible to Mr. Clayton’s behavior, to\\nseek out and to exploit them.” Procedural reasonableness simply requires that a district court\\nsufficiently explain its reasoning to allow for reasonable appellate review. United States v.\\nDexta, 470 F.3d 612, 614–15 (6th Cir. 2006). As the district court demonstrated its\\nconsideration of these issues, we see no procedural error here.\\n\\nC. Clayton’s Sentence Was Not Substantively Unreasonable.\\n\\n Clayton lastly asserts that his sentence was also substantively unreasonable. In contrast\\nto procedural reasonableness, substantive reasonableness focuses on the length of the sentence.\\nOur inquiry is one Goldilocks may well appreciate. We look at whether a “sentence is too long\\n(if a defendant appeals) or too short (if the government appeals).” Rayyan, 885 F.3d at 442. In\\n\\f No. 18-2237 United States v. Clayton Page 18\\n\\n\\nso doing, we ask whether the district court balanced the § 3553(a) factors correctly or if it placed\\ntoo much weight on some factors, not enough on others. Id.\\n\\n Our standard of review is deferential. We ask whether the district court abused its\\ndiscretion in setting the sentence. Parrish, 915 F.3d at 1047. We give considerable deference to\\na district court’s decision about the appropriate length, and we treat within-Guidelines sentences\\nas presumptively reasonable. Id.; see also United States v. Sexton, 512 F.3d 326, 332 (6th Cir.\\n2008).\\n\\n The district court did not abuse its discretion when balancing the § 3553(a) factors. The\\ncourt considered the nature and circumstances of the offense as well as Clayton’s personal and\\ncriminal history. The court described the offense as a “horrendous, drug fueled, weapon heavy\\nnightmare.” It added that Clayton had a lengthy criminal history that included past violence but\\nalso that he had some history of mental-health issues. The court next considered the need to\\npromote respect for the law and to impose a sentence that reflects the seriousness of the offense\\nas well as the need to provide just punishment for the offense, deter similar criminal conduct, and\\nprotect the public from further crimes of the defendant. There must be punishment, the court\\nobserved, to deter the defendant and others from engaging in this kind of behavior. Specifically,\\nthe court identified the need “to protect the public from further crimes of this man.” We see no\\nevidence that the district court gave too much weight to any one of these factors.\\n\\n Clayton takes issue with the district court’s characterization of his conduct as some of the\\nworst it had seen in over a decade on the bench. Clayton claims this is hyperbole, proving the\\nsubstantive unreasonableness of his sentence. In his mind, this statement reflects that the district\\ncourt was blinded by the need for deterrence in setting the sentence, to the exclusion of the other\\nsentencing factors. Clayton is correct that the district court did not mince words in describing\\nthe severity of Clayton’s conduct. Yet, as just explained, Clayton’s sentence was imposed after a\\nbalancing of this and other § 3553(a) factors, a balancing the district court satisfactorily\\nexplained.\\n\\n But, says Clayton, his conduct cannot possibly be some of the worst that the district court\\nhas seen. Take his criminal history category of IV, he says. It falls short of the maximum\\n\\f No. 18-2237 United States v. Clayton Page 19\\n\\n\\ncategory, VI. Surely, says Clayton, the district court sentences numerous defendants with worse\\ncriminal history categories every year.\\n\\n That may be. But criminal history is an odd thing to highlight when the primary\\nconsideration at sentencing is the nature of the most recent criminal activity, activity the district\\ncourt found particularly appalling. That conclusion was reinforced by the Guidelines calculation\\nof Clayton’s offense level. That calculation was so great it made his criminal history category\\nirrelevant: His calculated offense level of 43, ten points lower than Clayton’s actual offense\\nlevel, yielded a lifetime sentence recommendation no matter the criminal history category.\\nU.S.S.G. ch. 5, pt. A.\\n\\n A life sentence is severe punishment. But Clayton’s conduct was similarly severe, both\\nnow and before. Clayton’s past includes convictions for domestic violence and assault. Now he\\nhas added sex trafficking—of a minor—and creation of over three dozen child-pornography\\nvideos. And recall what each of these videos shows: Clayton having sex with girls he knew\\nwere minors, some of whom were drugged and intoxicated, each of whom he exploited on social\\nmedia for his own gratification, and, regrettably, each of whom will long bear the weight of these\\ncrimes. We cannot say the district court unreasonably sentenced Clayton for these acts. Clayton\\nhas thus not rebutted the presumption that his within-Guidelines sentence was reasonable. See\\nUnited States v. Lapsins, 570 F.3d 758, 774 (6th Cir. 2009).\\n\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n\\n For these reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4435050/\", \"author_raw\": \"CHAD A. READLER, Circuit Judge\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"SUTTON"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"GRIFFIN"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"READLER"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"SUTTON\": \", Circuit\", \"GRIFFIN\": \", Circuit\", \"READLER\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4657797/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":8,"string":"8"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: United States v. Michael Clayton\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-08-30\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0223p.06\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ┐\n Plaintiff-Appellee, │\n │\n > No. 18-2237\n v. │\n │\n │\n MICHAEL ANTHONY CLAYTON, │\n Defendant-Appellant. │\n ┘\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court\n for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids.\n No. 1:17-cr-00230-1—Janet T. Neff, District Judge.\n\n Decided and Filed: August 30, 2019\n\n Before: SUTTON, GRIFFIN, and READLER, Circuit Judges.\n\n _________________\n\n COUNSEL\n\nON BRIEF: Kenneth P. Tableman, KENNETH P. TABLEMAN, P.C., Grand Rapids,\nMichigan, for Appellant. Davin M. Reust, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Grand\nRapids, Michigan, for Appellee.\n _________________\n\n OPINION\n _________________\n\n CHAD A. READLER, Circuit Judge. For over five decades, the Supreme Court’s\npronouncement in Miranda v. Arizona has informed the decision-making process for suspected\ncriminals in the custody of law enforcement. Chief among the decisions facing a suspect in\ncustody are whether to speak to investigators and whether to seek legal advice. To inform these\nchoices, Miranda requires that a suspect be advised by investigators of, among other things, his\n\f No. 18-2237 United States v. Clayton Page 2\n\n\nright to “remain silent” and his “right to counsel.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 473\n(1966). Those critical features of Miranda ensure that a suspect understands, before being\nquestioned, that he is not required to talk to interrogating officers and that he has the right to\nconsult a lawyer regarding any anticipated interrogation.\n\n Those fundamental aspects of Miranda were honored here. All agree that the Miranda\nwarning given to Defendant Michael Clayton omitted one element of the traditional warning\nutilized by the Battle Creek, Michigan Police Department—that a suspect has the right to have\nhis attorney with him “during questioning.” But that message was still conveyed to Clayton. In\nbeing informed of his right to counsel, Clayton was told that the right begins at the outset, before\nany questioning. That and the fact that “[n]othing in the words used indicated that counsel’s\npresence would be restricted [during] questioning,” undermine Clayton’s argument. Florida v.\nPowell, 559 U.S. 50, 63 (2010). We accordingly reject his Miranda challenge. We also reject\nClayton’s challenge to his sentence and AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.\n\n I. BACKGROUND\n\n Michael Clayton was convicted and sentenced to life in prison for sexually exploiting\nthree young women, each of them minors. The allegations against him were disturbing and\ngraphic. Clayton often used drugs to facilitate this abuse. His most frequent victim, J.P., was a\nvulnerable minor with a drug addiction.\n\nA. Clayton Sexually Exploits J.P.\n\n From an early age, J.P. struggled to overcome her addiction to drugs. In an effort to kick\nthe habit, she moved away from Michigan. She was only fifteen years old at the time.\n\n J.P. returned to Michigan a year later. Almost immediately, she met Clayton through a\nmutual friend, H.K., also a minor. Clayton and his friend Ramiro Hernandez met up with J.P.\nand H.K. one evening at Clayton’s house. Clayton asked J.P. her age, and she told him she was\nsixteen. The group smoked marijuana and drank alcohol. Clayton also supplied the girls with\ncocaine. And at some point that night, Clayton had sex with J.P.\n\f No. 18-2237 United States v. Clayton Page 3\n\n\n This pattern of conduct continued over the next two weeks: Clayton would invite J.P.\nover to his house, give her cocaine, and have sex with her. Clayton was clear in his expectations\nof J.P.: cocaine in exchange for sex. Clayton recorded the sex acts on his iPhone, often\npublishing them on Snapchat, a social media application where users can exchange photos,\nvideos, and texts. In the fourteen days that Clayton knew J.P. he recorded twenty-seven sexually\nexplicit videos of her.\n\n During this same period, Clayton also began introducing J.P. to other men. The first was\nFreddie Cruz. One evening when Cruz arrived at Clayton’s home, J.P. was handed a small plate\nwith cocaine on it, which she was told was from Cruz. Clayton asked J.P. to turn around while\nthe two men commented on her body and negotiated a price. Cruz then left.\n\n Later that evening, Carlos Duran visited Clayton’s home. As he did with Cruz, Clayton\nnegotiated with Duran a price for J.P.—$100. Duran then took J.P. to the bedroom and had sex\nwith her while Clayton stood by with a gun. Clayton kept the money paid by Duran.\n\n One day during this disturbing sequence of events, J.P.’s nose started bleeding, and she\nasked to take a break from using cocaine. Clayton became suspicious and asked J.P. why she\nwas stopping. She told him that she felt sick. Ignoring her answer, Clayton asked again. He\nthen left the room. When he returned, he was holding a gun. Clayton loaded the gun and gave\nJ.P. specific instructions: “[O]kay, this is what we are going to do. I’m going to take this plate\nof coke and we are going to go in the bedroom and we are going to have sex.” J.P. did as she\nwas instructed.\n\nB. Law Enforcement Intervenes, Finding A Terrified J.P. Hidden In Clayton’s Basement.\n\n That night, a frightened J.P. texted her father while at Clayton’s house. She was being\nheld against her will, she said, and she believed that her life was in danger. Fear-stricken, her\nfather called the Battle Creek Police Department, notifying them of J.P.’s texts.\n\n The police and J.P.’s father raced to Clayton’s house, and the police announced their\npresence upon arrival. Clayton’s roommate, Blake Robbins, answered the door. He told the\nofficers J.P. had left with her friend, H.K., about thirty minutes earlier. At that moment, J.P.’s\n\f No. 18-2237 United States v. Clayton Page 4\n\n\nfather received another text. J.P. alerted him that she was still in the house. The officers stormed\ninside. They found Clayton and, with him, a potpourri of criminality: two loaded guns, a set\nof brass knuckles, cocaine powder, marijuana, and drug paraphernalia. But they could not\nimmediately locate J.P. Upon reaching the basement, the officers finally found J.P., traumatized\nand hysterical. J.P. would later testify that she had been forced into the basement in an effort to\nconceal her presence. Officers took J.P. to the hospital, took Clayton and Robbins into custody,\nand arrested Hernandez not long after.\n\nC. While In Custody, Clayton Is Questioned By Law Enforcement.\n\n When Clayton arrived at the station, officers seized his phone and began questioning him.\nDetective Sutherland conducted the interrogations. Before any questioning, Sutherland read\nClayton his Miranda rights from a standard form used by the Battle Creek Police Department.\nSutherland told Clayton:\n\n Before we ask you any questions, you must understand\n your rights.\n - You have the right to remain silent.\n - Anything you say can and will be used against you in\n court.\n - You have the right to talk to a lawyer before we ask you\n any questions.\n Clayton: Ok.\n Det. Sutherland: If you cannot afford to have a lawyer, one will be appointed\n for you before any questioning if you wish.\n Do you understand your rights?\n Clayton: Yes, sir.\n\n In giving these warnings, Sutherland misread the third Miranda warning concerning the\nright to counsel. Sutherland tracked the part of the form that states “[y]ou have the right to talk\nto a lawyer before we ask you any questions”—but omitted the following clause of the\nwarning—“and to have him/her with you during questioning.” (emphasis added). Sutherland\noffered Clayton the form and asked Clayton to sign it, but Clayton refused.\n\f No. 18-2237 United States v. Clayton Page 5\n\n\n After the interview and a subsequent break, Sutherland interviewed Clayton again. He\ndid not re-read to Clayton any aspect of the Miranda warnings. Each of the interviews lasted\nthirty minutes or less. In neither session did Clayton provide any material statements.\n\n Clayton was interviewed again the following day, this time by Homeland Security\nInvestigations Special Agent Williams and Battle Creek Police Detective Bush. At the outset of\nthat interview, Williams stated: “It’s my understanding that you were read Miranda, and you’re\ngood to go. You still want to talk because this is your lifeline?” Clayton responded\nenthusiastically: “Hell yeah I want to f[***]ing talk.”\n\n During the interview, Clayton admitted to having sex with J.P., who he said he believed\nwas seventeen years old, and to producing a Snapchat video of the encounter. He also claimed\nthat J.P.’s friend, H.K., was responsible for prostituting J.P. He provided the officers with the\npassword to unlock his cellphone. During the course of the interview, which lasted about an\nhour, Clayton claimed he was “freaking out.”\n\n After his initial interview with Clayton, Sutherland interviewed J.P. During the\ninterview, which took place at the hospital, J.P. explained that over the course of two weeks,\nClayton repeatedly gave her cocaine, had sex with her, and made sexually explicit recordings of\nher with his phone, many of which she said were stored on his Snapchat account. J.P. provided\nSutherland with Clayton’s username to his Snapchat account. J.P. also had a physical exam.\nClayton’s DNA was found on her underwear and anal/perianal area.\n\n Following this series of interviews, Williams acquired search warrants for Clayton’s\ncellphone, Facebook account, and Snapchat account. On those platforms, officers found\napproximately thirty-seven videos of Clayton engaging in sex acts with minors. J.P. was\nfeatured in twenty-seven videos, H.K. in seven, and a third victim, K.P., in three. Clayton’s\nSnapchat account also contained four videos of him displaying and weighing cocaine and two of\nhim holding a firearm. In addition to the digital evidence discovered on Snapchat, officers\ndiscovered text messages by Clayton and Hernandez discussing the trafficking of J.P.\n\f No. 18-2237 United States v. Clayton Page 6\n\n\nD. Clayton Is Charged With Sexually Exploiting And Trafficking Underage Girls.\n\n In an eight-count superseding indictment, Clayton was charged with conspiracy to exploit\na minor; sexual exploitation of minors J.P., H.K., and K.P.; sex trafficking a minor; conspiracy to\ndistribute cocaine; and being a felon in possession of firearms. The superseding indictment also\ncharged Hernandez.\n\n Clayton moved to suppress the statements he made during his interviews with Sutherland\nand Williams and the evidence arising therefrom. After a hearing, the district court denied\nClayton’s motion. The case was then set for a jury trial.\n\n Trial lasted three days. Over the course of the trial, the government presented substantial\nevidence against Clayton. Much of it was directed at Clayton’s sexual exploitation of minors:\n\n • J.P. testified about her sexual encounters with Clayton.\n • Duran testified that he paid Clayton so that he could have sex with J.P.\n • A forensic technician testified that she recovered Clayton’s DNA from J.P.’s\n underwear and genital region.\n • Hernandez and J.P. both testified that Clayton took videos of underage girls and\n uploaded them onto Snapchat.\n • H.K.’s mother testified that several Snapchat videos recovered from Clayton’s\n account revealed Clayton sexually exploiting her daughter.\n • Sutherland testified about the videos and text messages recovered from Clayton,\n Robbins, Hernandez, and J.P.’s phones.\n • Sutherland described the recordings of the minors performing sex acts, which were\n found on Clayton’s phone and Snapchat account.\n\n The victims of Clayton’s sexual misconduct, however, were not limited to J.P. and H.K.\nThe jury also heard testimony that just a month before he met J.P., Clayton had engaged in\nsimilar misconduct with another minor, K.P. K.P. testified that she was fifteen years old when\nClayton reached out to her on Facebook. She had seen him around Battle Creek, and he knew\nsome of her family. Over Facebook, Clayton asked K.P. how old she was, and she told him that\nshe was fifteen. Clayton then invited K.P. to his house. The first time she visited, they watched\na movie. The second time, Clayton tried to get K.P. to use cocaine, but she refused. The two\nhad sex, and Clayton recorded the episode.\n\f No. 18-2237 United States v. Clayton Page 7\n\n\n K.P. visited Clayton five more times. Each time, they engaged in sex acts, and he\nrecorded them. Like Clayton’s recordings of acts with other minors, videos of K.P. were also\nfound on his phone and Snapchat account. K.P. kept going back to Clayton, she told the jury,\nbecause she was afraid of him. He would threaten her with a gun and tell her that if she ever left\nhim or refused to have sex with him, he would kill her. Clayton sent her a video in which he was\nsaying the same thing.\n\n Other evidence detailed Clayton’s activities related to drugs and guns. Among the more\nsignificant evidence: Hernandez and J.P. testified that Clayton sold cocaine and owned guns.\nVideos depicted Clayton talking about dealing large quantities of drugs. And a crime technician\ntestified that he collected cocaine and two firearms from Clayton’s house.\n\nE. Clayton Is Convicted And Sentenced To Life In Prison.\n\n Clayton was convicted on all counts. The ensuing presentence report calculated\nClayton’s offense level as 53. The offense level was reduced to 43 in accordance with Chapter\n5, Part A of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which states that when a total offense level\ncalculation exceeds 43, the offense level is treated as a level 43. U.S.S.G. ch. 5, pt. A, cmt. n.2.\nClayton’s criminal history was calculated as category IV due to his prior convictions for\ndomestic violence, assault, battery, and being a felon in possession of a firearm.\n\n Clayton sought a downward variance on the basis of his history of mental-health issues.\nClayton claimed to exhibit mental-health and behavioral problems throughout his lifetime. Since\na young age, Clayton had received mental-health treatment and social security benefits. Despite\nthese obstacles, he managed to graduate from high school and attend some college. In his\ntwenties, Clayton was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. But he never\nconsistently took the medications prescribed, claiming they made him feel like a “zombie.”\nClayton claimed these mental-health issues made him susceptible to manipulation by the other\ndefendants and the victims. Acknowledging all of this, the district court nonetheless denied\nClayton’s request for a downward variance.\n\n Clayton’s criminal history combined with the seriousness of his multiple sexual-\nexploitation offenses resulted in a Guideline calculation of a sentence of life imprisonment. The\n\f No. 18-2237 United States v. Clayton Page 8\n\n\ndistrict court addressed the relevant sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). When\nconsidering the nature of the offense and the need for deterrence, the court highlighted the\nseriousness of Clayton’s conduct, which the court characterized as a “horrendous, drug fueled,\nweapon heavy nightmare.” By contrast, it considered but did not credit Clayton’s claim that his\nmental-health problems made him susceptible to the victims’ manipulation. Pronouncing\nClayton’s conduct as some of the worst it had seen in over a decade on the bench, the district\ncourt sentenced Clayton to life in prison. While serving that sentence, the district court\nrecommended that Clayton receive mental-health treatment.\n\n II. ANALYSIS\n\n Clayton’s appeal primarily turns on his invocation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436,\n479 (1966). He argues he was not properly apprised of his right to the presence of an attorney\nduring police interrogation, as required by Miranda. It follows, he says, that his admissions to\nlaw enforcement and any physical evidence obtained therefrom should have been suppressed.\nHe also argues that his sentence was both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. We\nreject each of his arguments.\n\nA. Clayton Properly Received And Waived His Miranda Rights.\n\n From its familiar case-law pedigree to its popularized usage across cinema and television,\nthe general contours of the “Miranda warning” are well-known. While we sometimes struggle to\nname high-ranking government officials or even the three branches of government,\nsee Americans are poorly informed about basic constitutional provisions, Annenberg Pub.\nPol. Center (Sept. 12, 2017), https://cdn.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/wp-\ncontent/uploads/2017/09/Civics-survey-Sept-2017-complete.pdf (“Only a quarter of Americans\n(26 percent) can name all three branches of government.”), many undoubtedly can name one or\nmore of the four warnings an officer must give before questioning a suspect in custody. They\nare: (1) you have the right to remain silent, (2) anything you say can be used against you in a\ncourt of law, (3) you have the right to the presence of an attorney, and (4) if you cannot afford an\nattorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you would like. Miranda,\n384 U.S. at 479.\n\f No. 18-2237 United States v. Clayton Page 9\n\n\n At issue today are Miranda’s third and fourth warnings: You have the right to the\npresence of an attorney, and if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed prior to any\nquestioning if you would like. Id. In advising suspects of their Miranda rights, officers of the\nBattle Creek Police Department customarily would read from a standard form that followed the\ntraditional Miranda warning. Police investigators told Clayton the following: “You have the\nright to talk to a lawyer before we ask you any questions. . . . If you cannot afford to have a\nlawyer, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish.” That warning did not\ntrack completely Battle Creek’s standard warning. It omitted the phrase: “and to have him/her\nwith you during questioning.”\n\n Sutherland also provided Clayton with a copy of the Battle Creek form, which accurately\ndescribed his Miranda rights. In the absence of a proper verbal Miranda warning, receipt of the\nproper warning in writing might itself be sufficient to inform a suspect of his Miranda rights,\neven if he does not sign the form (and Clayton did not). See, e.g., United States v. Adams,\n583 F.3d 457, 467–68 (6th Cir. 2009) (internal citations omitted). All that is required is that the\nsuspect be informed of his Miranda rights. But the record here is unclear whether Clayton read\nthe form he was offered. So we are left with the question: Was the verbal warning given to\nClayton nonetheless sufficient to convey Miranda’s command with respect to the right to\ncounsel?\n\n It was. While the officer in question would have been better served to read the entire\nMiranda instruction, we do not require any specific formulation of those rights. What we require\nis a warning that reasonably conveys the rights at issue. Florida v. Powell, 559 U.S. 50, 60\n(2010) (noting that the “Court has not dictated the words in which the essential information must\nbe conveyed”) (citing California v. Prysock, 453 U.S. 355, 359 (1981) (per curiam)). With\nrespect to Miranda’s third and fourth warnings, one way or another, a suspect must be advised\nthat he has the right to consult counsel, before any questioning, and regardless whether he can\nafford one. Here, these goals were achieved.\n\f No. 18-2237 United States v. Clayton Page 10\n\n\n 1. A Suspect’s Miranda Rights Must Be Reasonably Conveyed.\n\n Miranda’s warnings aim “to ensure that an accused is advised of and understands the\nright to remain silent and the right to counsel.” Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370, 383\n(2010). With respect to the right to counsel specifically, Miranda defines that right to include\nboth “the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with [you] during interrogation.”\n384 U.S. at 471.\n\n Warnings need not be formulaic. Powell, 559 U.S. at 60; Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S.\n195, 202–03 (1989); Prysock, 453 U.S. at 359–60. Indeed, there is no “talismanic incantation”\nofficers must follow. Prysock, 453 U.S at 359. Rather, what officers must do is warn a suspect\nin a manner that, to invoke a baseball analogy, “touch[es] all of the bases” reasonably to convey\nto a suspect his rights under Miranda. Duckworth, 492 U.S. at 203. With some play in the\njoints, courts should not “examine Miranda warnings as if construing a will or defining the terms\nof an easement.” Id. Instead, our test is a practical one: Would a suspect hearing the warnings\nreasonably understand his options regarding interrogation?\n\n Making that practicality inquiry, however, is not without its challenges. By way of\nbackground, when the Supreme Court embarked down the path of required Miranda warnings, it\nexpected this approach would “obviate[] the need for a case-by-case inquiry into the actual\nvoluntariness of the admissions of the accused.” Prysock, 453 U.S. at 359 (citation omitted).\nBut one case-by-case inquiry replaced another. Today, courts are often asked to decide whether\nvariations of the Miranda warning are constitutionally sufficient. So rather than inquiring into\nthe circumstances surrounding a particular defendant’s interrogation, as was the case pre-\nMiranda, courts now engage in linguistic exercises over the hypothetical prejudice caused by a\nvariation in some aspect of the warning. See, e.g., United States v. Crumpton, 824 F.3d 593,\n605–06 (6th Cir. 2016) (finding sufficient a warning that informed a suspect of his right to\nremain silent and that failing to do so would result in his statements being used against him even\nwithout the phrase “in court”). That being the case, we now take up this linguistic examination.\n\f No. 18-2237 United States v. Clayton Page 11\n\n\n 2. To Be Valid, Miranda’s Instruction Regarding The Right To Counsel Must Be\n Understood From A “Commonsense Reading” Of The Warning Given To The Suspect.\n\n With respect to the right-to-counsel aspects of Miranda, the Supreme Court in Florida v.\nPowell clarified what type of warnings sufficiently convey that right to an individual in custody.\n559 U.S. at 60–63. In Powell, a Florida police officer told a suspect: “You have the right to talk\nto a lawyer before answering any of our questions. If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one\nwill be appointed for you without cost and before any questioning. You have the right to use any\nof these rights at any time you want during this interview.” Id. at 54. The Florida Supreme\nCourt deemed this warning misleading because it interpreted “before questioning” as imposing a\ntime limit on the right to counsel. Id. at 55. That phrasing, the Florida Supreme Court\nconcluded, erroneously suggested that the suspect (Powell) could consult with an attorney only\n“before” the interrogation started. Id. “Before” was thus said to define both the beginning—and\nend—to the right’s duration. Id.\n\n The Supreme Court disagreed. The warning, it explained, made clear the seminal right at\nstake—“the right to talk to a lawyer.” And when the entire instruction was “given a\ncommonsense reading,” the warning effectively “communicated that the right to counsel carried\nforward to and through the interrogation . . . .” Id. at 63. Nothing in the warning, the Supreme\nCourt observed, indicated that the right expired once questioning began. Id. at 62. The phrase\n“before any questioning,” which had troubled the Florida Supreme Court, was seemingly\nmisconstrued by that court. These warnings, said the Supreme Court, merely indicated when that\nright began, not how long it lasted. Id.\n\n Other aspects of the warning further confirmed that Powell was sufficiently advised of\nthe comprehensive nature of his right to counsel. The warning at issue in Powell included a\n“catchall” provision informing the defendant that he had the right to “use any of these rights at\nany time you want during this interview.” Id. at 55. Read together, the warnings stated that a\nsuspect had the right to talk to a lawyer before any questions and that he could invoke that right\nat any point, including during questioning. Id. at 62–63. Of course, “[d]ifferent words were\nused in the advice Powell received” when compared to Miranda’s precise formulation. Id. at 64.\nBut, it bears noting, “they communicated the same essential message.” Id.\n\f No. 18-2237 United States v. Clayton Page 12\n\n\n For these reasons, the instruction in Powell was not likely to confuse a reasonable\nlistener. To conclude that the right to counsel during questioning did not exist based upon the\nlanguage used in Powell’s warning, the Supreme Court reasoned, would be “to imagine an\nunlikely scenario.” Id. at 62. After all, the right to counsel “at any time” would naturally include\nduring any questioning or other interrogation. Id. Concluding otherwise would be\n“counterintuitive.” Id. It would require a scenario where the suspect would need “to hop in and\nout of the holding area to seek his attorney’s advice” between questions. Id.\n\n 3. Clayton’s Warning Regarding The Right To Counsel Satisfied Powell’s “Commonsense\n Reading” Standard.\n\n In approving of the instruction given to the suspect by Florida police officials, Powell\nlargely resolves the issue before us today. Sutherland told Clayton that he had “the right to talk\nto a lawyer before we ask you any questions . . . [and] [i]f you cannot afford to have a lawyer,\none will be appointed to you before questioning if you wish.” Clayton was thus informed, as\nwas the suspect in Powell, that he had the right to consult with an attorney, as required by\nMiranda, and that the right began immediately, before any questions may be asked. That\n“reasonably conveyed [Clayton’s] right to have an attorney present, not only at the outset of\ninterrogation, but at all times.” Id. at 62.\n\n As in Powell, this phrasing was enough to communicate “the same essential message” as\nthe warnings approved in Miranda. Id. at 64. In fact, the warning Clayton received was in some\nrespects more comprehensive than the warning in Miranda. Miranda, it bears reminding, merely\nrequired that a defendant be informed of his right to “the presence of an attorney.” 384 U.S. at\n479. To be sure, Miranda clarified that “presence” includes the right to consult with an attorney\nbefore and during questioning. But Miranda did not require a warning exactly to that effect.\nCase in point: Miranda acknowledged that the warnings employed by the FBI at the time of its\ndecision were “consistent with the procedure which we delineate today.” Id. at 483–84. And\nthose warnings, while advising of the right to counsel, conspicuously did not state expressly that\ncounsel may be present during interrogation. See id. at 500–01 n.3 (Clark, J., dissenting).\n\n That Clayton was informed of a right to counsel “before questioning” (but not given the\nsame express direction for the period “during questioning”) does not change our conclusion.\n\f No. 18-2237 United States v. Clayton Page 13\n\n\nHere again, we lean on Miranda, which approved of virtually the same phrasing in its parallel\nuse of the word “prior.” “Prior to any questioning” was the way Miranda articulated the right to\nappointed counsel. Id. at 479. Miranda itself treated “prior” as an indication of the right’s\nstarting point, not its end. So too for the word “before.”\n\n It’s true that the warnings in this case did not contain the same kind of catchall phrase as\nthe warnings in Powell. 559 U.S. at 54–55 (defining the “catchall” warning as: “[y]ou have the\nright to use any of these rights at any time you want during this interview” (alteration in\noriginal)). But that does not change the result here. Like his right to talk to an attorney “before\nwe ask you any questions,” the officers told Clayton of his right to have an attorney appointed\n“before any questioning.” This context helps show that the “before” language is triggering in\nboth instances, rather than limiting. It would be “counterintuitive” to think that both rights\nkicked in before questioning but terminated the moment the officer started the interrogation. Id.\nat 62. That’s especially true given that Miranda and Powell read similar language (“prior to”\nand “before”) as triggering. And, as far as we can tell, since Powell, no court of appeals or state\nSupreme Court has found this formulation wanting.\n\n Our decision here finds itself in good company, and not just the company of Miranda and\nPowell. A year after Powell was decided, the Florida Supreme Court read Powell the same way\nwe do today. In Rigterink v. State, the court upheld a warning where the defendant was told he\nhad the right to an attorney “present prior to questioning.” 66 So. 3d 866, 884 (Fla. 2011). The\nFlorida Supreme Court found that the use of “prior to” was the same as “before” and merely\nindicates when the right to counsel begins. Id. at 892–93.\n\n Since then, both the Third and Fourth Circuits have upheld warnings less fulsome than\nthe one Clayton received. Those courts found that the bare warning “you have the right to an\nattorney,” without any clarifying language, was enough to satisfy Miranda. See United States v.\nWarren, 642 F.3d 182, 185–87 (3d Cir. 2011); United States v. Nash, 739 F. App’x 762, 765 (4th\nCir. 2018) (per curiam). In neither instance was the right-to-counsel warning fatally undermined\nby the absence of an express reference to the right to counsel during interrogation.\n\f No. 18-2237 United States v. Clayton Page 14\n\n\n And consider one other aspect of Warren. As just explained, the right-to-counsel\nwarning there did not contain any qualifying language. But the fourth right—the right to\nappointed counsel, if the suspect cannot afford one—did. It tracked the language in Miranda:\n“If you cannot afford to hire an attorney, one will be appointed to represent you without charge\nbefore any questioning.” Warren, 642 F.3d at 184 (emphasis added). That language, the Third\nCircuit noted, merely indicated when the right to appointed counsel would start. Id. at 186. It\ndid not serve to cabin that right to the period before questioning. The same is true here with\nrespect to Clayton’s instruction regarding the right to counsel before questioning.\n\n * * * * *\n\n A few final thoughts. One can fairly argue what particular instruction might best convey\na defendant’s Miranda rights. Clayton has his view, and he may well be correct. But that type\nof debate is reminiscent of the formalistic quibbling criticized in Duckworth, Prysock, and\nPowell. As those cases instruct, courts are not in the business of dictating the “precise\nformulation of the warnings given a criminal defendant.” Prysock, 453 U.S. at 359. Nor are\ncourts looking to crown the best formulation, declaring all others deficient. Powell, 559 U.S. at\n63 (“Although the warnings were not the clearest possible formulation of Miranda’s right-to-\ncounsel advisement, they were sufficiently comprehensive and comprehensible when given a\ncommonsense reading.”) (emphasis in original). Our job is simply to ask whether a\n“commonsense reading” of the actual language employed meets the aims of Miranda. See id. at\n64 (noting that in the Miranda context, “[d]ifferent words” can “communicate[] the same\nessential message”).\n\n That is not to say interrogating officers need not sweat the details. We reiterate what\nPowell, Warren, and many others have said before. Officers are expected to take the necessary\nsteps to properly Mirandize a suspect. Skirting the edges puts the issue in our hands, not those of\nthe interrogators, as today’s case reflects. On this point we note agreement from the United\nStates. In its brief in Powell, it identified the same concerns and cautioned: “[P]olice can\nsignificantly reduce the risk that a court will later suppress the suspect’s statement on the ground\nthat the advice was inadequate.” Id. at 64 (quotations omitted). Here, an officer decided not to\n\f No. 18-2237 United States v. Clayton Page 15\n\n\nread the form he held in his hand, opting instead to recite the warnings from memory. His\nmemory failed him, leaving the ensuing prosecution subject to a Fifth Amendment challenge.\n\n In the end, these warnings sufficiently advised Clayton of the scope of his right to\ncounsel. In the world of Miranda, substance controls form. And here, the substance passes\nconstitutional muster.\n\n 4. Clayton’s Statements Were Voluntary.\n\n Regardless whether he was properly Mirandized, Clayton contends that his statements\nwere nonetheless involuntary, making them and their fruits inadmissible. To determine whether\na defendant’s statement was voluntary, we ask the following three questions: “(1) Was the\npolice activity objectively coercive? (2) Was the coercive activity sufficient to overbear the\ndefendant’s will? and (3) Was ‘the alleged police misconduct . . . the crucial motivating factor in\nthe defendant’s decision to offer the statement’?” United States v. Scott, 553 F. App’x 555, 558\n(6th Cir. 2014) (quoting United States v. Mahan, 190 F.3d 416, 422 (6th Cir. 1999)). Relevant\nfactors in this inquiry include the defendant’s age, education and intelligence, his previous\ninteractions with the criminal justice system, the length and extent of questioning, and the use of\nphysical coercion such as deprivation of food or sleep. See Ledbetter v. Edwards, 35 F.3d 1062,\n1067 (6th Cir. 1994) (citations omitted) (examining these factors as part of the totality of the\ncircumstances surrounding the making of the statements at issue).\n\n Measured on this scale, there is little to suggest Clayton’s statements were anything but\nvoluntary. Clayton has a high-school education and attended some college; he was able to\nunderstand the situation he was in and what was being asked of him. When asked if he wanted\nto speak to Williams, Clayton declared: “Hell yeah I want to f[***]ing talk.” During\nquestioning, Clayton had the opportunity to respond freely. He used that opportunity to place the\nblame on others, minimizing his own involvement. Altogether, he was questioned for only about\ntwo hours, first by Sutherland, then by Williams, with a significant break in between. And this\nwas not unfamiliar territory for Clayton, given his previous charges and convictions. In sum, we\nsee no evidence of coercion.\n\f No. 18-2237 United States v. Clayton Page 16\n\n\n Clayton disagrees. He portrays as a form of coercion the fact that Williams offered him a\n“lifeline.” But that “offer” was seemingly nothing more than a suggestion that Clayton might\nreceive some leniency if he cooperated, a practice that is generally permissible. See, e.g., United\nStates v. Wiley, 132 F. App’x 635, 640 (6th Cir. 2005). Yes, Clayton may also have been\n“freaking out.” But that would likely be true of anyone who finds himself the subject of possible\ncriminal charges—particularly ones as serious as those Clayton faced. And while Clayton has\nsome history of mental-health issues, nothing about his interrogation suggests he did not\nunderstand the questions posed or that he otherwise acted in a concerning manner.\n\n Our final tally: Clayton received sufficient Miranda warnings, his statements to law\nenforcement were made voluntarily, and those statements and the related physical evidence were\nproperly admitted. Clayton’s conviction thus stands.\n\nB. Clayton’s Sentence Was Not Procedurally Unreasonable.\n\n Turning from his conviction to the sentence imposed for that conviction, Clayton claims\nthat his within-Guidelines life sentence was procedurally unreasonable.\n\n In considering whether a sentence is procedurally unreasonable, our focus lies on how the\nsentence was calculated. We ask whether the district court properly calculated the Guidelines\nrange, remembered to treat that range as advisory, and considered the sentencing factors in\n18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) while refraining from considering impermissible factors. United States v.\nRayyan, 885 F.3d 436, 440 (6th Cir. 2018) (citing Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007)).\nTo satisfy our procedural reasonableness inquiry, the district court must have sufficiently\nexplained its sentence and may not have selected a sentence based upon facts that are clearly\nerroneous. United States v. Parrish, 915 F.3d 1043, 1047 (6th Cir. 2019), petition for cert. filed,\n(U.S. July 2, 2019) (No. 19-5123). Ordinarily, we would review Clayton’s claim of procedural\nunreasonableness for an abuse of discretion. Id. But because Clayton did not object during\nsentencing, we review his claim only for plain error. United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382, 386\n(6th Cir. 2008) (en banc).\n\n Clayton’s claim falls short either way. In all respects, his life sentence was procedurally\nreasonable. The sentence was within the Guidelines range. The district court treated that range\n\f No. 18-2237 United States v. Clayton Page 17\n\n\nas advisory. It considered all of the § 3553(a) sentencing factors. And it sufficiently explained\nits sentence.\n\n Clayton has two objections, each stemming from the district court’s treatment of his\nmental-health history. One, the district court failed to grant his request for a downward variance\nbased upon his mental-health challenges. And two, the district court failed to explain why it also\nrejected Clayton’s mental-health issues. According to Clayton, his history of “mostly low level”\nfelonies is attributable to his upbringing and longstanding mental-health issues. Those mental-\nhealth issues, he adds, allowed him to be manipulated by the other defendants and the victims\nhere. On these grounds, Clayton claims entitlement to a shorter sentence.\n\n Our scope of review, however, is not that encompassing. In the context of a procedural\nreasonableness challenge, we ask only whether the district court understood its discretion to vary\ndownwards and whether it adequately addressed Clayton’s mental-health issues raised in that\nmotion. See Rayyan, 885 F.3d at 440.\n\n The district court hit each of these marks. The district court noted Clayton’s mental-\nhealth-based arguments and then adequately addressed them. It acknowledged Clayton’s mental-\nhealth history but ultimately did not find that it justified a variance. And the court firmly\nrejected Clayton’s contention that he was manipulated by others, including his victims. The\ndistrict court was blunt in its assessment of the latter argument, finding it “almost laughable to\ntry to place blame on these young girls who were so susceptible to Mr. Clayton’s behavior, to\nseek out and to exploit them.” Procedural reasonableness simply requires that a district court\nsufficiently explain its reasoning to allow for reasonable appellate review. United States v.\nDexta, 470 F.3d 612, 614–15 (6th Cir. 2006). As the district court demonstrated its\nconsideration of these issues, we see no procedural error here.\n\nC. Clayton’s Sentence Was Not Substantively Unreasonable.\n\n Clayton lastly asserts that his sentence was also substantively unreasonable. In contrast\nto procedural reasonableness, substantive reasonableness focuses on the length of the sentence.\nOur inquiry is one Goldilocks may well appreciate. We look at whether a “sentence is too long\n(if a defendant appeals) or too short (if the government appeals).” Rayyan, 885 F.3d at 442. In\n\f No. 18-2237 United States v. Clayton Page 18\n\n\nso doing, we ask whether the district court balanced the § 3553(a) factors correctly or if it placed\ntoo much weight on some factors, not enough on others. Id.\n\n Our standard of review is deferential. We ask whether the district court abused its\ndiscretion in setting the sentence. Parrish, 915 F.3d at 1047. We give considerable deference to\na district court’s decision about the appropriate length, and we treat within-Guidelines sentences\nas presumptively reasonable. Id.; see also United States v. Sexton, 512 F.3d 326, 332 (6th Cir.\n2008).\n\n The district court did not abuse its discretion when balancing the § 3553(a) factors. The\ncourt considered the nature and circumstances of the offense as well as Clayton’s personal and\ncriminal history. The court described the offense as a “horrendous, drug fueled, weapon heavy\nnightmare.” It added that Clayton had a lengthy criminal history that included past violence but\nalso that he had some history of mental-health issues. The court next considered the need to\npromote respect for the law and to impose a sentence that reflects the seriousness of the offense\nas well as the need to provide just punishment for the offense, deter similar criminal conduct, and\nprotect the public from further crimes of the defendant. There must be punishment, the court\nobserved, to deter the defendant and others from engaging in this kind of behavior. Specifically,\nthe court identified the need “to protect the public from further crimes of this man.” We see no\nevidence that the district court gave too much weight to any one of these factors.\n\n Clayton takes issue with the district court’s characterization of his conduct as some of the\nworst it had seen in over a decade on the bench. Clayton claims this is hyperbole, proving the\nsubstantive unreasonableness of his sentence. In his mind, this statement reflects that the district\ncourt was blinded by the need for deterrence in setting the sentence, to the exclusion of the other\nsentencing factors. Clayton is correct that the district court did not mince words in describing\nthe severity of Clayton’s conduct. Yet, as just explained, Clayton’s sentence was imposed after a\nbalancing of this and other § 3553(a) factors, a balancing the district court satisfactorily\nexplained.\n\n But, says Clayton, his conduct cannot possibly be some of the worst that the district court\nhas seen. Take his criminal history category of IV, he says. It falls short of the maximum\n\f No. 18-2237 United States v. Clayton Page 19\n\n\ncategory, VI. Surely, says Clayton, the district court sentences numerous defendants with worse\ncriminal history categories every year.\n\n That may be. But criminal history is an odd thing to highlight when the primary\nconsideration at sentencing is the nature of the most recent criminal activity, activity the district\ncourt found particularly appalling. That conclusion was reinforced by the Guidelines calculation\nof Clayton’s offense level. That calculation was so great it made his criminal history category\nirrelevant: His calculated offense level of 43, ten points lower than Clayton’s actual offense\nlevel, yielded a lifetime sentence recommendation no matter the criminal history category.\nU.S.S.G. ch. 5, pt. A.\n\n A life sentence is severe punishment. But Clayton’s conduct was similarly severe, both\nnow and before. Clayton’s past includes convictions for domestic violence and assault. Now he\nhas added sex trafficking—of a minor—and creation of over three dozen child-pornography\nvideos. And recall what each of these videos shows: Clayton having sex with girls he knew\nwere minors, some of whom were drugged and intoxicated, each of whom he exploited on social\nmedia for his own gratification, and, regrettably, each of whom will long bear the weight of these\ncrimes. We cannot say the district court unreasonably sentenced Clayton for these acts. Clayton\nhas thus not rebutted the presumption that his within-Guidelines sentence was reasonable. See\nUnited States v. Lapsins, 570 F.3d 758, 774 (6th Cir. 2009).\n\n III. CONCLUSION\n\n For these reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: United States v. Michael Clayton\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-08-30\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0223p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ┐\\n Plaintiff-Appellee, │\\n │\\n > No. 18-2237\\n v. │\\n │\\n │\\n MICHAEL ANTHONY CLAYTON, │\\n Defendant-Appellant. │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids.\\n No. 1:17-cr-00230-1—Janet T. Neff, District Judge.\\n\\n Decided and Filed: August 30, 2019\\n\\n Before: SUTTON, GRIFFIN, and READLER, Circuit Judges.\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nON BRIEF: Kenneth P. Tableman, KENNETH P. TABLEMAN, P.C., Grand Rapids,\\nMichigan, for Appellant. Davin M. Reust, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Grand\\nRapids, Michigan, for Appellee.\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n CHAD A. READLER, Circuit Judge. For over five decades, the Supreme Court’s\\npronouncement in Miranda v. Arizona has informed the decision-making process for suspected\\ncriminals in the custody of law enforcement. Chief among the decisions facing a suspect in\\ncustody are whether to speak to investigators and whether to seek legal advice. To inform these\\nchoices, Miranda requires that a suspect be advised by investigators of, among other things, his\\n\\f No. 18-2237 United States v. Clayton Page 2\\n\\n\\nright to “remain silent” and his “right to counsel.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 473\\n(1966). Those critical features of Miranda ensure that a suspect understands, before being\\nquestioned, that he is not required to talk to interrogating officers and that he has the right to\\nconsult a lawyer regarding any anticipated interrogation.\\n\\n Those fundamental aspects of Miranda were honored here. All agree that the Miranda\\nwarning given to Defendant Michael Clayton omitted one element of the traditional warning\\nutilized by the Battle Creek, Michigan Police Department—that a suspect has the right to have\\nhis attorney with him “during questioning.” But that message was still conveyed to Clayton. In\\nbeing informed of his right to counsel, Clayton was told that the right begins at the outset, before\\nany questioning. That and the fact that “[n]othing in the words used indicated that counsel’s\\npresence would be restricted [during] questioning,” undermine Clayton’s argument. Florida v.\\nPowell, 559 U.S. 50, 63 (2010). We accordingly reject his Miranda challenge. We also reject\\nClayton’s challenge to his sentence and AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.\\n\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n\\n Michael Clayton was convicted and sentenced to life in prison for sexually exploiting\\nthree young women, each of them minors. The allegations against him were disturbing and\\ngraphic. Clayton often used drugs to facilitate this abuse. His most frequent victim, J.P., was a\\nvulnerable minor with a drug addiction.\\n\\nA. Clayton Sexually Exploits J.P.\\n\\n From an early age, J.P. struggled to overcome her addiction to drugs. In an effort to kick\\nthe habit, she moved away from Michigan. She was only fifteen years old at the time.\\n\\n J.P. returned to Michigan a year later. Almost immediately, she met Clayton through a\\nmutual friend, H.K., also a minor. Clayton and his friend Ramiro Hernandez met up with J.P.\\nand H.K. one evening at Clayton’s house. Clayton asked J.P. her age, and she told him she was\\nsixteen. The group smoked marijuana and drank alcohol. Clayton also supplied the girls with\\ncocaine. And at some point that night, Clayton had sex with J.P.\\n\\f No. 18-2237 United States v. Clayton Page 3\\n\\n\\n This pattern of conduct continued over the next two weeks: Clayton would invite J.P.\\nover to his house, give her cocaine, and have sex with her. Clayton was clear in his expectations\\nof J.P.: cocaine in exchange for sex. Clayton recorded the sex acts on his iPhone, often\\npublishing them on Snapchat, a social media application where users can exchange photos,\\nvideos, and texts. In the fourteen days that Clayton knew J.P. he recorded twenty-seven sexually\\nexplicit videos of her.\\n\\n During this same period, Clayton also began introducing J.P. to other men. The first was\\nFreddie Cruz. One evening when Cruz arrived at Clayton’s home, J.P. was handed a small plate\\nwith cocaine on it, which she was told was from Cruz. Clayton asked J.P. to turn around while\\nthe two men commented on her body and negotiated a price. Cruz then left.\\n\\n Later that evening, Carlos Duran visited Clayton’s home. As he did with Cruz, Clayton\\nnegotiated with Duran a price for J.P.—$100. Duran then took J.P. to the bedroom and had sex\\nwith her while Clayton stood by with a gun. Clayton kept the money paid by Duran.\\n\\n One day during this disturbing sequence of events, J.P.’s nose started bleeding, and she\\nasked to take a break from using cocaine. Clayton became suspicious and asked J.P. why she\\nwas stopping. She told him that she felt sick. Ignoring her answer, Clayton asked again. He\\nthen left the room. When he returned, he was holding a gun. Clayton loaded the gun and gave\\nJ.P. specific instructions: “[O]kay, this is what we are going to do. I’m going to take this plate\\nof coke and we are going to go in the bedroom and we are going to have sex.” J.P. did as she\\nwas instructed.\\n\\nB. Law Enforcement Intervenes, Finding A Terrified J.P. Hidden In Clayton’s Basement.\\n\\n That night, a frightened J.P. texted her father while at Clayton’s house. She was being\\nheld against her will, she said, and she believed that her life was in danger. Fear-stricken, her\\nfather called the Battle Creek Police Department, notifying them of J.P.’s texts.\\n\\n The police and J.P.’s father raced to Clayton’s house, and the police announced their\\npresence upon arrival. Clayton’s roommate, Blake Robbins, answered the door. He told the\\nofficers J.P. had left with her friend, H.K., about thirty minutes earlier. At that moment, J.P.’s\\n\\f No. 18-2237 United States v. Clayton Page 4\\n\\n\\nfather received another text. J.P. alerted him that she was still in the house. The officers stormed\\ninside. They found Clayton and, with him, a potpourri of criminality: two loaded guns, a set\\nof brass knuckles, cocaine powder, marijuana, and drug paraphernalia. But they could not\\nimmediately locate J.P. Upon reaching the basement, the officers finally found J.P., traumatized\\nand hysterical. J.P. would later testify that she had been forced into the basement in an effort to\\nconceal her presence. Officers took J.P. to the hospital, took Clayton and Robbins into custody,\\nand arrested Hernandez not long after.\\n\\nC. While In Custody, Clayton Is Questioned By Law Enforcement.\\n\\n When Clayton arrived at the station, officers seized his phone and began questioning him.\\nDetective Sutherland conducted the interrogations. Before any questioning, Sutherland read\\nClayton his Miranda rights from a standard form used by the Battle Creek Police Department.\\nSutherland told Clayton:\\n\\n Before we ask you any questions, you must understand\\n your rights.\\n - You have the right to remain silent.\\n - Anything you say can and will be used against you in\\n court.\\n - You have the right to talk to a lawyer before we ask you\\n any questions.\\n Clayton: Ok.\\n Det. Sutherland: If you cannot afford to have a lawyer, one will be appointed\\n for you before any questioning if you wish.\\n Do you understand your rights?\\n Clayton: Yes, sir.\\n\\n In giving these warnings, Sutherland misread the third Miranda warning concerning the\\nright to counsel. Sutherland tracked the part of the form that states “[y]ou have the right to talk\\nto a lawyer before we ask you any questions”—but omitted the following clause of the\\nwarning—“and to have him/her with you during questioning.” (emphasis added). Sutherland\\noffered Clayton the form and asked Clayton to sign it, but Clayton refused.\\n\\f No. 18-2237 United States v. Clayton Page 5\\n\\n\\n After the interview and a subsequent break, Sutherland interviewed Clayton again. He\\ndid not re-read to Clayton any aspect of the Miranda warnings. Each of the interviews lasted\\nthirty minutes or less. In neither session did Clayton provide any material statements.\\n\\n Clayton was interviewed again the following day, this time by Homeland Security\\nInvestigations Special Agent Williams and Battle Creek Police Detective Bush. At the outset of\\nthat interview, Williams stated: “It’s my understanding that you were read Miranda, and you’re\\ngood to go. You still want to talk because this is your lifeline?” Clayton responded\\nenthusiastically: “Hell yeah I want to f[***]ing talk.”\\n\\n During the interview, Clayton admitted to having sex with J.P., who he said he believed\\nwas seventeen years old, and to producing a Snapchat video of the encounter. He also claimed\\nthat J.P.’s friend, H.K., was responsible for prostituting J.P. He provided the officers with the\\npassword to unlock his cellphone. During the course of the interview, which lasted about an\\nhour, Clayton claimed he was “freaking out.”\\n\\n After his initial interview with Clayton, Sutherland interviewed J.P. During the\\ninterview, which took place at the hospital, J.P. explained that over the course of two weeks,\\nClayton repeatedly gave her cocaine, had sex with her, and made sexually explicit recordings of\\nher with his phone, many of which she said were stored on his Snapchat account. J.P. provided\\nSutherland with Clayton’s username to his Snapchat account. J.P. also had a physical exam.\\nClayton’s DNA was found on her underwear and anal/perianal area.\\n\\n Following this series of interviews, Williams acquired search warrants for Clayton’s\\ncellphone, Facebook account, and Snapchat account. On those platforms, officers found\\napproximately thirty-seven videos of Clayton engaging in sex acts with minors. J.P. was\\nfeatured in twenty-seven videos, H.K. in seven, and a third victim, K.P., in three. Clayton’s\\nSnapchat account also contained four videos of him displaying and weighing cocaine and two of\\nhim holding a firearm. In addition to the digital evidence discovered on Snapchat, officers\\ndiscovered text messages by Clayton and Hernandez discussing the trafficking of J.P.\\n\\f No. 18-2237 United States v. Clayton Page 6\\n\\n\\nD. Clayton Is Charged With Sexually Exploiting And Trafficking Underage Girls.\\n\\n In an eight-count superseding indictment, Clayton was charged with conspiracy to exploit\\na minor; sexual exploitation of minors J.P., H.K., and K.P.; sex trafficking a minor; conspiracy to\\ndistribute cocaine; and being a felon in possession of firearms. The superseding indictment also\\ncharged Hernandez.\\n\\n Clayton moved to suppress the statements he made during his interviews with Sutherland\\nand Williams and the evidence arising therefrom. After a hearing, the district court denied\\nClayton’s motion. The case was then set for a jury trial.\\n\\n Trial lasted three days. Over the course of the trial, the government presented substantial\\nevidence against Clayton. Much of it was directed at Clayton’s sexual exploitation of minors:\\n\\n • J.P. testified about her sexual encounters with Clayton.\\n • Duran testified that he paid Clayton so that he could have sex with J.P.\\n • A forensic technician testified that she recovered Clayton’s DNA from J.P.’s\\n underwear and genital region.\\n • Hernandez and J.P. both testified that Clayton took videos of underage girls and\\n uploaded them onto Snapchat.\\n • H.K.’s mother testified that several Snapchat videos recovered from Clayton’s\\n account revealed Clayton sexually exploiting her daughter.\\n • Sutherland testified about the videos and text messages recovered from Clayton,\\n Robbins, Hernandez, and J.P.’s phones.\\n • Sutherland described the recordings of the minors performing sex acts, which were\\n found on Clayton’s phone and Snapchat account.\\n\\n The victims of Clayton’s sexual misconduct, however, were not limited to J.P. and H.K.\\nThe jury also heard testimony that just a month before he met J.P., Clayton had engaged in\\nsimilar misconduct with another minor, K.P. K.P. testified that she was fifteen years old when\\nClayton reached out to her on Facebook. She had seen him around Battle Creek, and he knew\\nsome of her family. Over Facebook, Clayton asked K.P. how old she was, and she told him that\\nshe was fifteen. Clayton then invited K.P. to his house. The first time she visited, they watched\\na movie. The second time, Clayton tried to get K.P. to use cocaine, but she refused. The two\\nhad sex, and Clayton recorded the episode.\\n\\f No. 18-2237 United States v. Clayton Page 7\\n\\n\\n K.P. visited Clayton five more times. Each time, they engaged in sex acts, and he\\nrecorded them. Like Clayton’s recordings of acts with other minors, videos of K.P. were also\\nfound on his phone and Snapchat account. K.P. kept going back to Clayton, she told the jury,\\nbecause she was afraid of him. He would threaten her with a gun and tell her that if she ever left\\nhim or refused to have sex with him, he would kill her. Clayton sent her a video in which he was\\nsaying the same thing.\\n\\n Other evidence detailed Clayton’s activities related to drugs and guns. Among the more\\nsignificant evidence: Hernandez and J.P. testified that Clayton sold cocaine and owned guns.\\nVideos depicted Clayton talking about dealing large quantities of drugs. And a crime technician\\ntestified that he collected cocaine and two firearms from Clayton’s house.\\n\\nE. Clayton Is Convicted And Sentenced To Life In Prison.\\n\\n Clayton was convicted on all counts. The ensuing presentence report calculated\\nClayton’s offense level as 53. The offense level was reduced to 43 in accordance with Chapter\\n5, Part A of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which states that when a total offense level\\ncalculation exceeds 43, the offense level is treated as a level 43. U.S.S.G. ch. 5, pt. A, cmt. n.2.\\nClayton’s criminal history was calculated as category IV due to his prior convictions for\\ndomestic violence, assault, battery, and being a felon in possession of a firearm.\\n\\n Clayton sought a downward variance on the basis of his history of mental-health issues.\\nClayton claimed to exhibit mental-health and behavioral problems throughout his lifetime. Since\\na young age, Clayton had received mental-health treatment and social security benefits. Despite\\nthese obstacles, he managed to graduate from high school and attend some college. In his\\ntwenties, Clayton was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. But he never\\nconsistently took the medications prescribed, claiming they made him feel like a “zombie.”\\nClayton claimed these mental-health issues made him susceptible to manipulation by the other\\ndefendants and the victims. Acknowledging all of this, the district court nonetheless denied\\nClayton’s request for a downward variance.\\n\\n Clayton’s criminal history combined with the seriousness of his multiple sexual-\\nexploitation offenses resulted in a Guideline calculation of a sentence of life imprisonment. The\\n\\f No. 18-2237 United States v. Clayton Page 8\\n\\n\\ndistrict court addressed the relevant sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). When\\nconsidering the nature of the offense and the need for deterrence, the court highlighted the\\nseriousness of Clayton’s conduct, which the court characterized as a “horrendous, drug fueled,\\nweapon heavy nightmare.” By contrast, it considered but did not credit Clayton’s claim that his\\nmental-health problems made him susceptible to the victims’ manipulation. Pronouncing\\nClayton’s conduct as some of the worst it had seen in over a decade on the bench, the district\\ncourt sentenced Clayton to life in prison. While serving that sentence, the district court\\nrecommended that Clayton receive mental-health treatment.\\n\\n II. ANALYSIS\\n\\n Clayton’s appeal primarily turns on his invocation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436,\\n479 (1966). He argues he was not properly apprised of his right to the presence of an attorney\\nduring police interrogation, as required by Miranda. It follows, he says, that his admissions to\\nlaw enforcement and any physical evidence obtained therefrom should have been suppressed.\\nHe also argues that his sentence was both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. We\\nreject each of his arguments.\\n\\nA. Clayton Properly Received And Waived His Miranda Rights.\\n\\n From its familiar case-law pedigree to its popularized usage across cinema and television,\\nthe general contours of the “Miranda warning” are well-known. While we sometimes struggle to\\nname high-ranking government officials or even the three branches of government,\\nsee Americans are poorly informed about basic constitutional provisions, Annenberg Pub.\\nPol. Center (Sept. 12, 2017), https://cdn.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/wp-\\ncontent/uploads/2017/09/Civics-survey-Sept-2017-complete.pdf (“Only a quarter of Americans\\n(26 percent) can name all three branches of government.”), many undoubtedly can name one or\\nmore of the four warnings an officer must give before questioning a suspect in custody. They\\nare: (1) you have the right to remain silent, (2) anything you say can be used against you in a\\ncourt of law, (3) you have the right to the presence of an attorney, and (4) if you cannot afford an\\nattorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you would like. Miranda,\\n384 U.S. at 479.\\n\\f No. 18-2237 United States v. Clayton Page 9\\n\\n\\n At issue today are Miranda’s third and fourth warnings: You have the right to the\\npresence of an attorney, and if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed prior to any\\nquestioning if you would like. Id. In advising suspects of their Miranda rights, officers of the\\nBattle Creek Police Department customarily would read from a standard form that followed the\\ntraditional Miranda warning. Police investigators told Clayton the following: “You have the\\nright to talk to a lawyer before we ask you any questions. . . . If you cannot afford to have a\\nlawyer, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish.” That warning did not\\ntrack completely Battle Creek’s standard warning. It omitted the phrase: “and to have him/her\\nwith you during questioning.”\\n\\n Sutherland also provided Clayton with a copy of the Battle Creek form, which accurately\\ndescribed his Miranda rights. In the absence of a proper verbal Miranda warning, receipt of the\\nproper warning in writing might itself be sufficient to inform a suspect of his Miranda rights,\\neven if he does not sign the form (and Clayton did not). See, e.g., United States v. Adams,\\n583 F.3d 457, 467–68 (6th Cir. 2009) (internal citations omitted). All that is required is that the\\nsuspect be informed of his Miranda rights. But the record here is unclear whether Clayton read\\nthe form he was offered. So we are left with the question: Was the verbal warning given to\\nClayton nonetheless sufficient to convey Miranda’s command with respect to the right to\\ncounsel?\\n\\n It was. While the officer in question would have been better served to read the entire\\nMiranda instruction, we do not require any specific formulation of those rights. What we require\\nis a warning that reasonably conveys the rights at issue. Florida v. Powell, 559 U.S. 50, 60\\n(2010) (noting that the “Court has not dictated the words in which the essential information must\\nbe conveyed”) (citing California v. Prysock, 453 U.S. 355, 359 (1981) (per curiam)). With\\nrespect to Miranda’s third and fourth warnings, one way or another, a suspect must be advised\\nthat he has the right to consult counsel, before any questioning, and regardless whether he can\\nafford one. Here, these goals were achieved.\\n\\f No. 18-2237 United States v. Clayton Page 10\\n\\n\\n 1. A Suspect’s Miranda Rights Must Be Reasonably Conveyed.\\n\\n Miranda’s warnings aim “to ensure that an accused is advised of and understands the\\nright to remain silent and the right to counsel.” Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370, 383\\n(2010). With respect to the right to counsel specifically, Miranda defines that right to include\\nboth “the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with [you] during interrogation.”\\n384 U.S. at 471.\\n\\n Warnings need not be formulaic. Powell, 559 U.S. at 60; Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S.\\n195, 202–03 (1989); Prysock, 453 U.S. at 359–60. Indeed, there is no “talismanic incantation”\\nofficers must follow. Prysock, 453 U.S at 359. Rather, what officers must do is warn a suspect\\nin a manner that, to invoke a baseball analogy, “touch[es] all of the bases” reasonably to convey\\nto a suspect his rights under Miranda. Duckworth, 492 U.S. at 203. With some play in the\\njoints, courts should not “examine Miranda warnings as if construing a will or defining the terms\\nof an easement.” Id. Instead, our test is a practical one: Would a suspect hearing the warnings\\nreasonably understand his options regarding interrogation?\\n\\n Making that practicality inquiry, however, is not without its challenges. By way of\\nbackground, when the Supreme Court embarked down the path of required Miranda warnings, it\\nexpected this approach would “obviate[] the need for a case-by-case inquiry into the actual\\nvoluntariness of the admissions of the accused.” Prysock, 453 U.S. at 359 (citation omitted).\\nBut one case-by-case inquiry replaced another. Today, courts are often asked to decide whether\\nvariations of the Miranda warning are constitutionally sufficient. So rather than inquiring into\\nthe circumstances surrounding a particular defendant’s interrogation, as was the case pre-\\nMiranda, courts now engage in linguistic exercises over the hypothetical prejudice caused by a\\nvariation in some aspect of the warning. See, e.g., United States v. Crumpton, 824 F.3d 593,\\n605–06 (6th Cir. 2016) (finding sufficient a warning that informed a suspect of his right to\\nremain silent and that failing to do so would result in his statements being used against him even\\nwithout the phrase “in court”). That being the case, we now take up this linguistic examination.\\n\\f No. 18-2237 United States v. Clayton Page 11\\n\\n\\n 2. To Be Valid, Miranda’s Instruction Regarding The Right To Counsel Must Be\\n Understood From A “Commonsense Reading” Of The Warning Given To The Suspect.\\n\\n With respect to the right-to-counsel aspects of Miranda, the Supreme Court in Florida v.\\nPowell clarified what type of warnings sufficiently convey that right to an individual in custody.\\n559 U.S. at 60–63. In Powell, a Florida police officer told a suspect: “You have the right to talk\\nto a lawyer before answering any of our questions. If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one\\nwill be appointed for you without cost and before any questioning. You have the right to use any\\nof these rights at any time you want during this interview.” Id. at 54. The Florida Supreme\\nCourt deemed this warning misleading because it interpreted “before questioning” as imposing a\\ntime limit on the right to counsel. Id. at 55. That phrasing, the Florida Supreme Court\\nconcluded, erroneously suggested that the suspect (Powell) could consult with an attorney only\\n“before” the interrogation started. Id. “Before” was thus said to define both the beginning—and\\nend—to the right’s duration. Id.\\n\\n The Supreme Court disagreed. The warning, it explained, made clear the seminal right at\\nstake—“the right to talk to a lawyer.” And when the entire instruction was “given a\\ncommonsense reading,” the warning effectively “communicated that the right to counsel carried\\nforward to and through the interrogation . . . .” Id. at 63. Nothing in the warning, the Supreme\\nCourt observed, indicated that the right expired once questioning began. Id. at 62. The phrase\\n“before any questioning,” which had troubled the Florida Supreme Court, was seemingly\\nmisconstrued by that court. These warnings, said the Supreme Court, merely indicated when that\\nright began, not how long it lasted. Id.\\n\\n Other aspects of the warning further confirmed that Powell was sufficiently advised of\\nthe comprehensive nature of his right to counsel. The warning at issue in Powell included a\\n“catchall” provision informing the defendant that he had the right to “use any of these rights at\\nany time you want during this interview.” Id. at 55. Read together, the warnings stated that a\\nsuspect had the right to talk to a lawyer before any questions and that he could invoke that right\\nat any point, including during questioning. Id. at 62–63. Of course, “[d]ifferent words were\\nused in the advice Powell received” when compared to Miranda’s precise formulation. Id. at 64.\\nBut, it bears noting, “they communicated the same essential message.” Id.\\n\\f No. 18-2237 United States v. Clayton Page 12\\n\\n\\n For these reasons, the instruction in Powell was not likely to confuse a reasonable\\nlistener. To conclude that the right to counsel during questioning did not exist based upon the\\nlanguage used in Powell’s warning, the Supreme Court reasoned, would be “to imagine an\\nunlikely scenario.” Id. at 62. After all, the right to counsel “at any time” would naturally include\\nduring any questioning or other interrogation. Id. Concluding otherwise would be\\n“counterintuitive.” Id. It would require a scenario where the suspect would need “to hop in and\\nout of the holding area to seek his attorney’s advice” between questions. Id.\\n\\n 3. Clayton’s Warning Regarding The Right To Counsel Satisfied Powell’s “Commonsense\\n Reading” Standard.\\n\\n In approving of the instruction given to the suspect by Florida police officials, Powell\\nlargely resolves the issue before us today. Sutherland told Clayton that he had “the right to talk\\nto a lawyer before we ask you any questions . . . [and] [i]f you cannot afford to have a lawyer,\\none will be appointed to you before questioning if you wish.” Clayton was thus informed, as\\nwas the suspect in Powell, that he had the right to consult with an attorney, as required by\\nMiranda, and that the right began immediately, before any questions may be asked. That\\n“reasonably conveyed [Clayton’s] right to have an attorney present, not only at the outset of\\ninterrogation, but at all times.” Id. at 62.\\n\\n As in Powell, this phrasing was enough to communicate “the same essential message” as\\nthe warnings approved in Miranda. Id. at 64. In fact, the warning Clayton received was in some\\nrespects more comprehensive than the warning in Miranda. Miranda, it bears reminding, merely\\nrequired that a defendant be informed of his right to “the presence of an attorney.” 384 U.S. at\\n479. To be sure, Miranda clarified that “presence” includes the right to consult with an attorney\\nbefore and during questioning. But Miranda did not require a warning exactly to that effect.\\nCase in point: Miranda acknowledged that the warnings employed by the FBI at the time of its\\ndecision were “consistent with the procedure which we delineate today.” Id. at 483–84. And\\nthose warnings, while advising of the right to counsel, conspicuously did not state expressly that\\ncounsel may be present during interrogation. See id. at 500–01 n.3 (Clark, J., dissenting).\\n\\n That Clayton was informed of a right to counsel “before questioning” (but not given the\\nsame express direction for the period “during questioning”) does not change our conclusion.\\n\\f No. 18-2237 United States v. Clayton Page 13\\n\\n\\nHere again, we lean on Miranda, which approved of virtually the same phrasing in its parallel\\nuse of the word “prior.” “Prior to any questioning” was the way Miranda articulated the right to\\nappointed counsel. Id. at 479. Miranda itself treated “prior” as an indication of the right’s\\nstarting point, not its end. So too for the word “before.”\\n\\n It’s true that the warnings in this case did not contain the same kind of catchall phrase as\\nthe warnings in Powell. 559 U.S. at 54–55 (defining the “catchall” warning as: “[y]ou have the\\nright to use any of these rights at any time you want during this interview” (alteration in\\noriginal)). But that does not change the result here. Like his right to talk to an attorney “before\\nwe ask you any questions,” the officers told Clayton of his right to have an attorney appointed\\n“before any questioning.” This context helps show that the “before” language is triggering in\\nboth instances, rather than limiting. It would be “counterintuitive” to think that both rights\\nkicked in before questioning but terminated the moment the officer started the interrogation. Id.\\nat 62. That’s especially true given that Miranda and Powell read similar language (“prior to”\\nand “before”) as triggering. And, as far as we can tell, since Powell, no court of appeals or state\\nSupreme Court has found this formulation wanting.\\n\\n Our decision here finds itself in good company, and not just the company of Miranda and\\nPowell. A year after Powell was decided, the Florida Supreme Court read Powell the same way\\nwe do today. In Rigterink v. State, the court upheld a warning where the defendant was told he\\nhad the right to an attorney “present prior to questioning.” 66 So. 3d 866, 884 (Fla. 2011). The\\nFlorida Supreme Court found that the use of “prior to” was the same as “before” and merely\\nindicates when the right to counsel begins. Id. at 892–93.\\n\\n Since then, both the Third and Fourth Circuits have upheld warnings less fulsome than\\nthe one Clayton received. Those courts found that the bare warning “you have the right to an\\nattorney,” without any clarifying language, was enough to satisfy Miranda. See United States v.\\nWarren, 642 F.3d 182, 185–87 (3d Cir. 2011); United States v. Nash, 739 F. App’x 762, 765 (4th\\nCir. 2018) (per curiam). In neither instance was the right-to-counsel warning fatally undermined\\nby the absence of an express reference to the right to counsel during interrogation.\\n\\f No. 18-2237 United States v. Clayton Page 14\\n\\n\\n And consider one other aspect of Warren. As just explained, the right-to-counsel\\nwarning there did not contain any qualifying language. But the fourth right—the right to\\nappointed counsel, if the suspect cannot afford one—did. It tracked the language in Miranda:\\n“If you cannot afford to hire an attorney, one will be appointed to represent you without charge\\nbefore any questioning.” Warren, 642 F.3d at 184 (emphasis added). That language, the Third\\nCircuit noted, merely indicated when the right to appointed counsel would start. Id. at 186. It\\ndid not serve to cabin that right to the period before questioning. The same is true here with\\nrespect to Clayton’s instruction regarding the right to counsel before questioning.\\n\\n * * * * *\\n\\n A few final thoughts. One can fairly argue what particular instruction might best convey\\na defendant’s Miranda rights. Clayton has his view, and he may well be correct. But that type\\nof debate is reminiscent of the formalistic quibbling criticized in Duckworth, Prysock, and\\nPowell. As those cases instruct, courts are not in the business of dictating the “precise\\nformulation of the warnings given a criminal defendant.” Prysock, 453 U.S. at 359. Nor are\\ncourts looking to crown the best formulation, declaring all others deficient. Powell, 559 U.S. at\\n63 (“Although the warnings were not the clearest possible formulation of Miranda’s right-to-\\ncounsel advisement, they were sufficiently comprehensive and comprehensible when given a\\ncommonsense reading.”) (emphasis in original). Our job is simply to ask whether a\\n“commonsense reading” of the actual language employed meets the aims of Miranda. See id. at\\n64 (noting that in the Miranda context, “[d]ifferent words” can “communicate[] the same\\nessential message”).\\n\\n That is not to say interrogating officers need not sweat the details. We reiterate what\\nPowell, Warren, and many others have said before. Officers are expected to take the necessary\\nsteps to properly Mirandize a suspect. Skirting the edges puts the issue in our hands, not those of\\nthe interrogators, as today’s case reflects. On this point we note agreement from the United\\nStates. In its brief in Powell, it identified the same concerns and cautioned: “[P]olice can\\nsignificantly reduce the risk that a court will later suppress the suspect’s statement on the ground\\nthat the advice was inadequate.” Id. at 64 (quotations omitted). Here, an officer decided not to\\n\\f No. 18-2237 United States v. Clayton Page 15\\n\\n\\nread the form he held in his hand, opting instead to recite the warnings from memory. His\\nmemory failed him, leaving the ensuing prosecution subject to a Fifth Amendment challenge.\\n\\n In the end, these warnings sufficiently advised Clayton of the scope of his right to\\ncounsel. In the world of Miranda, substance controls form. And here, the substance passes\\nconstitutional muster.\\n\\n 4. Clayton’s Statements Were Voluntary.\\n\\n Regardless whether he was properly Mirandized, Clayton contends that his statements\\nwere nonetheless involuntary, making them and their fruits inadmissible. To determine whether\\na defendant’s statement was voluntary, we ask the following three questions: “(1) Was the\\npolice activity objectively coercive? (2) Was the coercive activity sufficient to overbear the\\ndefendant’s will? and (3) Was ‘the alleged police misconduct . . . the crucial motivating factor in\\nthe defendant’s decision to offer the statement’?” United States v. Scott, 553 F. App’x 555, 558\\n(6th Cir. 2014) (quoting United States v. Mahan, 190 F.3d 416, 422 (6th Cir. 1999)). Relevant\\nfactors in this inquiry include the defendant’s age, education and intelligence, his previous\\ninteractions with the criminal justice system, the length and extent of questioning, and the use of\\nphysical coercion such as deprivation of food or sleep. See Ledbetter v. Edwards, 35 F.3d 1062,\\n1067 (6th Cir. 1994) (citations omitted) (examining these factors as part of the totality of the\\ncircumstances surrounding the making of the statements at issue).\\n\\n Measured on this scale, there is little to suggest Clayton’s statements were anything but\\nvoluntary. Clayton has a high-school education and attended some college; he was able to\\nunderstand the situation he was in and what was being asked of him. When asked if he wanted\\nto speak to Williams, Clayton declared: “Hell yeah I want to f[***]ing talk.” During\\nquestioning, Clayton had the opportunity to respond freely. He used that opportunity to place the\\nblame on others, minimizing his own involvement. Altogether, he was questioned for only about\\ntwo hours, first by Sutherland, then by Williams, with a significant break in between. And this\\nwas not unfamiliar territory for Clayton, given his previous charges and convictions. In sum, we\\nsee no evidence of coercion.\\n\\f No. 18-2237 United States v. Clayton Page 16\\n\\n\\n Clayton disagrees. He portrays as a form of coercion the fact that Williams offered him a\\n“lifeline.” But that “offer” was seemingly nothing more than a suggestion that Clayton might\\nreceive some leniency if he cooperated, a practice that is generally permissible. See, e.g., United\\nStates v. Wiley, 132 F. App’x 635, 640 (6th Cir. 2005). Yes, Clayton may also have been\\n“freaking out.” But that would likely be true of anyone who finds himself the subject of possible\\ncriminal charges—particularly ones as serious as those Clayton faced. And while Clayton has\\nsome history of mental-health issues, nothing about his interrogation suggests he did not\\nunderstand the questions posed or that he otherwise acted in a concerning manner.\\n\\n Our final tally: Clayton received sufficient Miranda warnings, his statements to law\\nenforcement were made voluntarily, and those statements and the related physical evidence were\\nproperly admitted. Clayton’s conviction thus stands.\\n\\nB. Clayton’s Sentence Was Not Procedurally Unreasonable.\\n\\n Turning from his conviction to the sentence imposed for that conviction, Clayton claims\\nthat his within-Guidelines life sentence was procedurally unreasonable.\\n\\n In considering whether a sentence is procedurally unreasonable, our focus lies on how the\\nsentence was calculated. We ask whether the district court properly calculated the Guidelines\\nrange, remembered to treat that range as advisory, and considered the sentencing factors in\\n18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) while refraining from considering impermissible factors. United States v.\\nRayyan, 885 F.3d 436, 440 (6th Cir. 2018) (citing Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007)).\\nTo satisfy our procedural reasonableness inquiry, the district court must have sufficiently\\nexplained its sentence and may not have selected a sentence based upon facts that are clearly\\nerroneous. United States v. Parrish, 915 F.3d 1043, 1047 (6th Cir. 2019), petition for cert. filed,\\n(U.S. July 2, 2019) (No. 19-5123). Ordinarily, we would review Clayton’s claim of procedural\\nunreasonableness for an abuse of discretion. Id. But because Clayton did not object during\\nsentencing, we review his claim only for plain error. United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382, 386\\n(6th Cir. 2008) (en banc).\\n\\n Clayton’s claim falls short either way. In all respects, his life sentence was procedurally\\nreasonable. The sentence was within the Guidelines range. The district court treated that range\\n\\f No. 18-2237 United States v. Clayton Page 17\\n\\n\\nas advisory. It considered all of the § 3553(a) sentencing factors. And it sufficiently explained\\nits sentence.\\n\\n Clayton has two objections, each stemming from the district court’s treatment of his\\nmental-health history. One, the district court failed to grant his request for a downward variance\\nbased upon his mental-health challenges. And two, the district court failed to explain why it also\\nrejected Clayton’s mental-health issues. According to Clayton, his history of “mostly low level”\\nfelonies is attributable to his upbringing and longstanding mental-health issues. Those mental-\\nhealth issues, he adds, allowed him to be manipulated by the other defendants and the victims\\nhere. On these grounds, Clayton claims entitlement to a shorter sentence.\\n\\n Our scope of review, however, is not that encompassing. In the context of a procedural\\nreasonableness challenge, we ask only whether the district court understood its discretion to vary\\ndownwards and whether it adequately addressed Clayton’s mental-health issues raised in that\\nmotion. See Rayyan, 885 F.3d at 440.\\n\\n The district court hit each of these marks. The district court noted Clayton’s mental-\\nhealth-based arguments and then adequately addressed them. It acknowledged Clayton’s mental-\\nhealth history but ultimately did not find that it justified a variance. And the court firmly\\nrejected Clayton’s contention that he was manipulated by others, including his victims. The\\ndistrict court was blunt in its assessment of the latter argument, finding it “almost laughable to\\ntry to place blame on these young girls who were so susceptible to Mr. Clayton’s behavior, to\\nseek out and to exploit them.” Procedural reasonableness simply requires that a district court\\nsufficiently explain its reasoning to allow for reasonable appellate review. United States v.\\nDexta, 470 F.3d 612, 614–15 (6th Cir. 2006). As the district court demonstrated its\\nconsideration of these issues, we see no procedural error here.\\n\\nC. Clayton’s Sentence Was Not Substantively Unreasonable.\\n\\n Clayton lastly asserts that his sentence was also substantively unreasonable. In contrast\\nto procedural reasonableness, substantive reasonableness focuses on the length of the sentence.\\nOur inquiry is one Goldilocks may well appreciate. We look at whether a “sentence is too long\\n(if a defendant appeals) or too short (if the government appeals).” Rayyan, 885 F.3d at 442. In\\n\\f No. 18-2237 United States v. Clayton Page 18\\n\\n\\nso doing, we ask whether the district court balanced the § 3553(a) factors correctly or if it placed\\ntoo much weight on some factors, not enough on others. Id.\\n\\n Our standard of review is deferential. We ask whether the district court abused its\\ndiscretion in setting the sentence. Parrish, 915 F.3d at 1047. We give considerable deference to\\na district court’s decision about the appropriate length, and we treat within-Guidelines sentences\\nas presumptively reasonable. Id.; see also United States v. Sexton, 512 F.3d 326, 332 (6th Cir.\\n2008).\\n\\n The district court did not abuse its discretion when balancing the § 3553(a) factors. The\\ncourt considered the nature and circumstances of the offense as well as Clayton’s personal and\\ncriminal history. The court described the offense as a “horrendous, drug fueled, weapon heavy\\nnightmare.” It added that Clayton had a lengthy criminal history that included past violence but\\nalso that he had some history of mental-health issues. The court next considered the need to\\npromote respect for the law and to impose a sentence that reflects the seriousness of the offense\\nas well as the need to provide just punishment for the offense, deter similar criminal conduct, and\\nprotect the public from further crimes of the defendant. There must be punishment, the court\\nobserved, to deter the defendant and others from engaging in this kind of behavior. Specifically,\\nthe court identified the need “to protect the public from further crimes of this man.” We see no\\nevidence that the district court gave too much weight to any one of these factors.\\n\\n Clayton takes issue with the district court’s characterization of his conduct as some of the\\nworst it had seen in over a decade on the bench. Clayton claims this is hyperbole, proving the\\nsubstantive unreasonableness of his sentence. In his mind, this statement reflects that the district\\ncourt was blinded by the need for deterrence in setting the sentence, to the exclusion of the other\\nsentencing factors. Clayton is correct that the district court did not mince words in describing\\nthe severity of Clayton’s conduct. Yet, as just explained, Clayton’s sentence was imposed after a\\nbalancing of this and other § 3553(a) factors, a balancing the district court satisfactorily\\nexplained.\\n\\n But, says Clayton, his conduct cannot possibly be some of the worst that the district court\\nhas seen. Take his criminal history category of IV, he says. It falls short of the maximum\\n\\f No. 18-2237 United States v. Clayton Page 19\\n\\n\\ncategory, VI. Surely, says Clayton, the district court sentences numerous defendants with worse\\ncriminal history categories every year.\\n\\n That may be. But criminal history is an odd thing to highlight when the primary\\nconsideration at sentencing is the nature of the most recent criminal activity, activity the district\\ncourt found particularly appalling. That conclusion was reinforced by the Guidelines calculation\\nof Clayton’s offense level. That calculation was so great it made his criminal history category\\nirrelevant: His calculated offense level of 43, ten points lower than Clayton’s actual offense\\nlevel, yielded a lifetime sentence recommendation no matter the criminal history category.\\nU.S.S.G. ch. 5, pt. A.\\n\\n A life sentence is severe punishment. But Clayton’s conduct was similarly severe, both\\nnow and before. Clayton’s past includes convictions for domestic violence and assault. Now he\\nhas added sex trafficking—of a minor—and creation of over three dozen child-pornography\\nvideos. And recall what each of these videos shows: Clayton having sex with girls he knew\\nwere minors, some of whom were drugged and intoxicated, each of whom he exploited on social\\nmedia for his own gratification, and, regrettably, each of whom will long bear the weight of these\\ncrimes. We cannot say the district court unreasonably sentenced Clayton for these acts. Clayton\\nhas thus not rebutted the presumption that his within-Guidelines sentence was reasonable. See\\nUnited States v. Lapsins, 570 F.3d 758, 774 (6th Cir. 2009).\\n\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n\\n For these reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3764,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4657800,"string":"4,657,800"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"J. Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ."},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-08-30"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-3825"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before: MERRITT, KETHLEDGE, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judge\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0222p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n J. ENDRES, ┐\\n Plaintiff-Appellant, │\\n │\\n │\\n v. │\\n > No. 18-3825\\n │\\n NORTHEAST OHIO MEDICAL UNIVERSITY; NORTHEAST │\\n OHIO MEDICAL UNIVERSITY BOARD OF TRUSTEES; │\\n SANDRA EMERICK; JAY A. GERSHEN, │\\n Defendants-Appellees. │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Northern District of Ohio at Akron.\\n No. 5:17-cv-02408—Sara E. Lioi, District Judge.\\n\\n Argued: May 2, 2019\\n\\n Decided and Filed: August 30, 2019\\n\\n Before: MERRITT, KETHLEDGE, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nARGUED: John S. Marshall, MARSHALL AND FORMAN LLC, Columbus, Ohio, for\\nAppellant. Todd R. Marti, OFFICE OF THE OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbus, Ohio,\\nfor Appellees. ON BRIEF: John S. Marshall, MARSHALL AND FORMAN LLC, Columbus,\\nOhio, for Appellant. Todd R. Marti, Anthony J. Farris, OFFICE OF THE OHIO ATTORNEY\\nGENERAL, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellees.\\n\\f No. 18-3825 Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., et al. Page 2\\n\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judge. Northeast Ohio Medical University (“NEOMED”)\\ndismissed Julian Endres, a medical student, for cheating on a test. Endres denies cheating, but\\nhis guilt or innocence is not relevant to this appeal. Instead, this appeal presents two questions.\\nThe first concerns when Endres should have brought the claims that he brings here. And the\\nsecond concerns what process the school should have afforded him before dismissing him. After\\nhis dismissal, Endres sued NEOMED, its president and board of trustees, and a NEOMED\\nadministrator, Sandra Emerick, alleging violations of his right to procedural due process, along\\nwith the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. But before\\nconsidering the substance of those claims, the district court dismissed Endres’s complaint as\\nuntimely. The district court also held that even if Endres’s due process claim were timely,\\nEmerick is entitled to qualified immunity. Endres appeals that decision.\\n\\n We hold that Endres’s claims are timely and REVERSE the district court’s dismissal of\\nhis complaint. Endres has also alleged facts which, taken as true, establish several violations of\\nhis procedural due process rights. But because the contours of those rights were not clearly\\nestablished, we AFFIRM the district court’s grant of qualified immunity to Emerick, which\\nimmunizes her from damages though not from injunctive relief.\\n\\n I.\\n\\n Julian Endres has Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”). Since his\\ndiagnosis at age six, Endres has taken medication to treat that condition, beginning with Ritalin,\\nand he seemed to manage well. Endres graduated from high school as valedictorian and enrolled\\nin the accelerated B.S./M.D. program at the Northeast Ohio Medical University (“NEOMED”), a\\npublic university. After completing his undergraduate studies in two years, graduating magna\\ncum laude, Endres began medical school.\\n\\n When Endres started his second semester of medical school, he experienced a new side\\neffect from Ritalin. Endres alleges that around March 2015, he felt that the medicine was over-\\n\\f No. 18-3825 Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., et al. Page 3\\n\\n\\nsedating him and making him lethargic—so he stopped taking it altogether. By that time, Endres\\nhad passed fourteen of the fifteen required classes to complete his first year of medical school,\\nbut he still had one class left. No longer on Ritalin, Endres failed that class. So NEOMED made\\nEndres repeat the entire first-year curriculum during the following academic year, including the\\nfourteen classes he had passed.\\n\\n Before he returned to NEOMED that fall, Endres consulted with his physicians to find a\\nmedicine that would treat his ADHD without inducing the unwanted side-effects, and in August\\n2015, Endres switched to Strattera. Endres alleges that Strattera helped him concentrate without\\nmaking him feel drowsy but that it was not a magic bullet. Unlike Ritalin, Strattera did not\\nsuppress his fidgeting. Even so, he stuck with the new medicine.\\n\\n The Test. Back at NEOMED, Endres re-enrolled in the mandatory first-year curriculum,\\nincluding Human Development and Structure (“HDS”), taught by Professor Hans Thewissen. It\\nmade no difference that Endres passed HDS the prior year because he had to retake all first-year\\nclasses.\\n\\n Tests at NEOMED are a serious undertaking. Students take their tests on NEOMED’s\\nlaptops, using a special software program that allows them to zoom in and out and manipulate\\nthe images on the screen. Endres alleges that NEOMED’s laptops are set at the lowest\\nbrightness level and that students cannot make the screen any brighter. And while students are\\ntaking tests, NEOMED officials are watching—both with their own eyes and with a camera that\\nrecords students taking examinations. Students knew that NEOMED was filming them. Indeed,\\nEndres had worked part-time as an assistant, helping NEOMED professors set up the camera to\\nrecord class lectures.\\n\\n This case involves the 25-question test Endres took on September 28, 2015, as part of the\\nHDS course. Endres sat directly in front of the camera. And as it turned out, the camera focused\\non Endres throughout much of the test. Footage from the test reveals Endres fidgeting and\\nrepeatedly glancing toward his right—and in the direction of his seatmate’s (“Student B”) laptop.\\nEndres concedes that his eye movements and sideways glances might look suspicious to\\nsomeone watching the video with no context, but he offers an alternate explanation. According\\n\\f No. 18-3825 Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., et al. Page 4\\n\\n\\nto Endres, Student B repeatedly used the software’s zoom feature, which created brief flashes of\\nlight that caused Endres to look repeatedly to the source. In any event, Endres contends that it\\nwas physically impossible to see any legible content on the laptop to his right, both because he\\nwas sitting about five feet away, and because all laptops were set to the lowest brightness level.\\n\\n When the test ended, one of the proctors completed an irregularity report, noting that\\nEndres appeared to look repeatedly at the laptop to his right—but that perhaps he was just\\nnervous. That report made its way to Sandra Emerick, NEOMED’s chief officer of student\\naffairs. And so NEOMED’s investigation of Endres began.\\n\\n The Investigation and Referral to CAPP. Endres alleges that Emerick began a three-day\\ninvestigation into his conduct during the September 28 test. Emerick reviewed the video\\nrecording of the test and obtained Endres’s and Student B’s answer keys, which revealed that\\n84% of their answers were identical. Student B and Endres answered the same six questions\\nincorrectly, the same fifteen questions correctly, and the same four questions differently. In the\\nend, Endres scored a 72 while Student B scored a 64. The class mean was a 56.5. Emerick then\\nsent her findings to several university administrators and professors, including Thewissen,\\nwriting that the video footage “clearly” showed Endres “viewing peer’s computer screen\\nrepeatedly during the exam,” and noting in boldface that “84% of the tests were identical.”\\n(R. 23, First Am. Compl. at ¶ 47.)\\n\\n NEOMED’s student handbook outlines various procedures to address allegations of\\nstudent misconduct, including cheating, and gives NEOMED administrators discretion over\\nwhich procedures to use. Under the handbook, the chief officer of student affairs works with\\nseveral administrators to decide where to refer misconduct allegations. The administrators have\\nthree basic options—they may refer the allegations to: (1) a formal disciplinary body; (2) the\\nCommittee on Academic and Professional Progress (“CAPP”); or (3) a less formal process, such\\nas counseling or mediation. When administrators refer a matter to the formal disciplinary body,\\nthe student has a right to an adversarial hearing—where he may learn the evidence against him,\\ncross-examine witnesses, and present evidence in his defense.\\n\\f No. 18-3825 Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., et al. Page 5\\n\\n\\n Emerick referred the matter to CAPP, which reviews issues related to academic\\nperformance and professionalism. CAPP accepted the referral and later sent Endres a letter\\nnotifying him that he had to attend a hearing on October 21, where a panel would discuss the\\n“professionalism concern,” as well as Endres’s “overall educational performance.” (Id. at ¶ 80.)\\nThe letter instructed Endres to review his student file and to complete a student interview form\\nwith Emerick, which Emerick would then add to his student file and present to CAPP at the\\nhearing.\\n\\n Emerick Meets with Endres. After referring the matter to CAPP, Emerick called Endres\\nfor a brief meeting on October 7, marking the first time that he learned of the allegations against\\nhim. Endres alleges that he was “completely stunned” to learn that he stood accused of cheating.\\n(Id. at ¶ 72.) And when Emerick showed Endres footage of the test, Endres alleges he was\\n“shell-shocked to see how ‘bad’ his fidgeting and side-glances caused by distractions looked.”\\n(Id.) Endres informed Emerick that he had recently switched from Ritalin to Strattera, which did\\nnot suppress his fidgeting, so Emerick requested that Endres provide documentation from his\\ndoctor about the medication change. Less than a week later, Endres’s doctor, Dr. Caroline\\nRamos, sent Emerick a letter describing Endres’s ADHD, along with medical records\\ndocumenting Endres’s medication adjustment between April and August 2015. Ramos stated\\nthat she viewed the video recording and found that Endres’s behavior during the test mimicked\\nthe fidgeting that Endres had described at an April 2015 appointment. Ramos also suggested that\\nbecause Endres had recently started the Strattera, NEOMED should make certain\\naccommodations for him, especially so that no one would misinterpret his fidgeting as academic\\nmisconduct.\\n\\n After the initial meeting, Endres emailed Emerick about his case. Endres explained to\\nEmerick that the position of the laptops prevented a test-taker from viewing any meaningful\\ninformation on a nearby laptop. So Endres requested that CAPP recreate the testing conditions\\nthrough a “field test,” which would prove that it was impossible to cheat. Endres alleges that\\nEmerick never responded to that request. In the same email, however, Endres requested\\ninformation and evidence on his case, and Emerick responded to that request, explaining that his\\n\\f No. 18-3825 Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., et al. Page 6\\n\\n\\nofficial student file contained all information from the investigation that she would present to\\nCAPP.\\n\\n On October 14, Endres visited the student enrollment office to review his file. Endres\\nalleges that he found a folder containing all of his records since he applied to NEOMED as a\\nhigh-school student—and in no particular order. According to Endres, his file contained only\\ntwo records related to the misconduct allegation: (1) an email from Emerick, referring the matter\\nto CAPP; and (2) Endres’s and Student B’s answer keys to the September 28 test. Endres alleges\\nthat the proctor’s irregularity report was missing from his file, prompting him to email Emerick\\nand request to view the report. Endres returned to the student enrollment office the next day to\\nview the report, which was then in the file.\\n\\n Endres met once more with Emerick before the CAPP hearing. He alleges that Emerick\\ndid not discuss any information about his case or describe to him the evidence that she would\\npresent before CAPP. Endres then submitted his student interview form, a personal statement, a\\nstatement from Dr. Ramos, and his medical records, which CAPP could review during the\\nhearing.\\n\\n The First CAPP Hearing. CAPP conducted the first hearing on October 21. CAPP\\nprocedures allow the accused student to speak to his unsatisfactory performance and respond to\\nquestions from committee members but do not allow the accused student in the room while the\\ncommittee reviews documents about his case. So the meeting began with Emerick in the room,\\npresenting the case against Endres, while Endres waited down the hall. After Emerick finished\\nher presentation, the panel allowed Endres into the room, and he presented his case. Endres\\nexplained to the panel that it would be physically impossible to commit the alleged misconduct\\nand described the field test he conducted with three randomly selected NEOMED students.\\nAccording to Endres, all three students agreed that it was impossible to view any information on\\nthe laptop immediately to their right—even if they turned their heads and stared directly at the\\nlaptop. Endres also explained his sideways glances, telling the panel about his recent medication\\nchange and that Strattera did not suppress his fidgeting or movements. And Endres noted that\\nthe flashes of light from Student B’s computer repeatedly distracted him during the test. As\\nEndres explained, NEOMED’s laptop software allows students to zoom in on pictures and\\n\\f No. 18-3825 Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., et al. Page 7\\n\\n\\ndiagrams, causing a color change on the laptop screen—and for Endres, a flash appearing in the\\ncorner of his eyes. This prompted him to turn repeatedly to his right, whenever his seatmate\\nadjusted the content on the laptop. Finally, Endres discussed the exam answers themselves.\\nAlthough Endres did not have the answer keys for the entire class, he explained that the\\npercentage of identical answers that two students might share simply turns on their scores and\\nthe number of correctly or incorrectly answered questions. According to Endres, the normal\\ndistribution range of similarity for two students who scored a 64 and a 72 (Student B’s score and\\nEndres’s score, respectively) would be between 64% and 92%. Thus, Endres explained that the\\nfact that he and Student B answered 84% of the questions identically was unremarkable.\\n\\n After Endres completed his 30-minute presentation, the panel questioned him about why\\nhe did not request an accommodation before taking the test. Endres explained that before\\nSeptember 28, he had not taken any test while on Strattera and that he had never needed any\\naccommodations while on Ritalin. Endres alleges that Emerick remained in the room throughout\\nhis presentation and the panel’s questions. But according to Endres, the panel did not inform\\nEndres about any part of Emerick’s presentation, nor did the panel ask Endres any questions\\nrelated to that presentation.\\n\\n Endres left the room, and the panel began its deliberations with Emerick still present.\\nEmerick called Endres the next day, telling him that the panel found him responsible for the\\nmisconduct. Endres later received an email informing him of the consequences of CAPP’s\\ndecision. He could: (1) withdraw within four days, in which case his transcript would state that\\nhe had withdrawn; (2) accept the decision for dismissal, in which case his transcript would state\\nthat he had been dismissed; or (3) request an appeal of CAPP’s decision if there is “significant\\nand compelling new information” unavailable at the hearing or if he had evidence that there was\\na defect or irregularity in the proceedings. (Id. at ¶ 118.)\\n\\n Endres and His Parents Meet with Emerick. Two days after the hearing, Endres and his\\nparents met with Emerick. Emerick discussed the evidence that she presented during the hearing\\nand that the committee relied on in reaching its decision. One key piece of evidence was a\\nstatistical analysis from Professor Thewissen (“Thewissen Analysis”), which claimed that there\\nwas a 0.000036% chance that two students would have six identical wrong answers. Endres\\n\\f No. 18-3825 Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., et al. Page 8\\n\\n\\nalleges that this was the first time he learned about the Thewissen Analysis and that the analysis\\nwas not present when he reviewed his student file before the hearing. The other key piece of\\nevidence was Emerick’s verbal interpretation of the video recording from the test. Emerick\\nrelayed to Endres and his parents that the panel did not believe that his ADHD caused his eye\\nmovements and that he should have used his right hand to shield his eyes from the occasional\\nflashes of light.\\n\\n Endres Files Appeal, Requests Additional Evidence. NEOMED’s student handbook\\nprovides students with a limited right of appeal. The Executive Review Committee (“ERC”)\\nconsiders appeals—but only if the student presents “significant and compelling new information\\nthat was not available for presentation [to CAPP], or evidence of a defect or irregularity in the\\nCAPP [ ] Committee proceeding.” (R. 25, Mot. to Dismiss Appx. at PageID #691.) The student\\nmust file an appeal (NEOMED calls it a “Petition for Executive Review”) within four working\\ndays after learning of CAPP’s decision, and if he fails to file an appeal in that time, CAPP’s\\n“decision becomes final.” (Id.) Moreover, CAPP’s decision becomes final if the ERC declines\\nto accept the appeal. (Id.)\\n\\n After the meeting with Emerick, Endres requested additional evidence related to the\\nexam, which he planned to introduce on appeal. In particular, Endres sought: (1) the student\\nperformance report for the entire HDS class, containing each individual score and answer key;\\n(2) the Thewissen Analysis; and (3) timestamp reports from the laptop software, showing\\nprecisely when Student B and Endres answered each exam question. Although NEOMED first\\ndeclined to provide Endres with this evidence, it ultimately turned over those records on the eve\\nof Endres’s deadline to appeal.\\n\\n Hours later, Endres filed his appeal with the ERC and submitted new evidence, including:\\n(1) hundreds of test comparisons based on the actual data from the HDS class, which Endres\\nalleges undermined the Thewissen Analysis and the fact that his answers and Student B’s\\nanswers were 84% similar; (2) signatures from HDS students, who agreed that it was impossible\\nto view content on a nearby laptop; and (3) a psychological evaluation from Dr. Andrew\\nTrauben, a psychiatrist specializing in ADHD, who reviewed the video of the test and met with\\nEndres to evaluate his symptoms. Endres tried to submit additional evidence after filing his\\n\\f No. 18-3825 Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., et al. Page 9\\n\\n\\nappeal, including his own statistical analysis that allegedly debunked the Thewissen Analysis.\\nHours before the ERC hearing, however, Emerick emailed Endres to notify him that the ERC\\nwould not accept his report and that he could not distribute copies of that report to ERC\\nmembers.\\n\\n The ERC Hearing. The ERC conducted a hearing on November 2, using the same\\nprocedures as CAPP. This meant that Emerick presented her case while Endres waited outside\\nthe room until it was his turn to speak. Endres then entered the room, and although he could not\\ndistribute copies of his statistical analysis, he described that analysis—as well as flaws in\\nEmerick’s statistical comparison and the Thewissen Analysis. As Endres explained, Emerick’s\\nstatistical comparison—that he and Student B had answered 84% of the questions identically—\\nproved no misconduct. Of the 160 HDS students who took the exam, more than 80 students had\\n85% similar answers with at least one other student in the class. And more than two-thirds of the\\nclass had six or more identical wrong answers with at least one other student in the class.\\nAccording to Endres, that data refuted the Thewissen Analysis’s claim that the probability two\\nstudents would mistakenly answer the same six questions was 0.000036%.\\n\\n The next day, Endres received a letter from the ERC granting him a rehearing before\\nCAPP but restricting the information he could present. While Endres could introduce Trauben’s\\nreport, he could not submit any evidence contesting the Thewissen Analysis.\\n\\n The Second CAPP Hearing. Knowing that CAPP would not consider his statistical\\nanalysis, Endres sent test data to Thewissen and asked him to defend his findings given the full\\nclass data. Thewissen declined to review the data, and NEOMED’s legal counsel later informed\\nEndres that Thewissen was not open to making any statement about potential errors in his\\nanalysis. That said, NEOMED’s legal counsel told Endres that the CAPP committee had agreed\\nto allow Trauben to speak at the hearing—and that the committee members would have some\\nquestions for the physician.\\n\\n Several hours before the second CAPP hearing on November 18, NEOMED’s legal\\ncounsel issued a limiting instruction to the CAPP:\\n\\f No. 18-3825 Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., et al. Page 10\\n\\n\\n Please be advised that during our deliberations today, the Committee should\\n accord no weight to any statement made or documents presented during the initial\\n hearing in [Endres’s] CAPP case that recounted any statistical analysis performed\\n on his test answers. Consistent with disregarding any statements made or\\n documents presented about any statistical analysis, the committee is to likewise\\n accord no weight to any documents set forth by [Endres] throughout his appeal\\n that include any statistical analysis of his test answers. While these documents\\n were included in the record received by the Committee in advance of today’s\\n meeting, they should not be considered during our review of this matter today, or\\n in making a decision.\\n\\n(R. 23, First Am. Compl. at ¶ 157.) This meant that Endres could not discuss the Thewissen\\nAnalysis or distribute any material about that analysis at the hearing. Nor could Endres\\nintroduce recorded video from a field test, which he alleges proved that it was physically\\nimpossible to view content on a neighboring laptop.\\n\\n The second CAPP hearing proceeded much like the first hearing. Emerick presented her\\ncase, after which Endres entered the room to present his version of events. Endres alleges that\\nCAPP only allowed him to speak generally and that he could not present, distribute, or discuss\\nany material that would have exonerated him, such as a video recording from a field test he\\nconducted. According to Endres, the recording would have proven that it was physically\\nimpossible for any student to view content on a neighboring laptop. CAPP then called Trauben,\\nwho reiterated that Endres’s behavior during the test was a manifestation of his ADHD. Endres\\nalleges that the committee asked Trauben some questions about his credentials and qualifications\\nto write the report he submitted on behalf of Endres. The next day—November 19, 2015—\\nEndres learned that the committee had voted to dismiss him.\\n\\n The Emerick Memo. Several days after the second CAPP hearing, Endres obtained a hard\\ncopy of his student file, which he alleges contained information he had not reviewed before that\\nhearing. Endres reviewed the file on November 11, when it was supposed to include all evidence\\nand information that Emerick would present at the second CAPP hearing. But when he reviewed\\nthe file after that hearing, it contained new evidence: a memo from Emerick (“Emerick Memo”),\\ndated November 2.\\n\\f No. 18-3825 Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., et al. Page 11\\n\\n\\n Endres alleges that the Emerick Memo inaccurately summarizes Emerick’s conversations\\nwith two of his physicians, Ramos and Trauben. Indeed, Ramos and Trauben submitted\\naffidavits stating that the Emerick Memo did not faithfully memorialize their conversations with\\nEmerick and that its content was either false, misleading, or taken out of context. For example,\\nthe Emerick Memo states that Trauben “understood that he needed a quick turn around on\\ndocumentation in order to submit a CAPP appeal letter.” (Id. at ¶ 171.) But Trauben explained\\nin his affidavit that “[t]hat sentence appears to suggest that my analysis of Mr. [Endres], or the\\nopinion I rendered, was compromised because of the timeframe in which it was completed. That\\nis not so, and it is not something I ever conveyed to [Defendant Emerick.]” (Id.) Trauben\\nconcluded that Emerick “did not faithfully memorialize the contents of our telephone call.” (Id.\\nat ¶ 173.)\\n\\n Ramos recounted similar inaccuracies and misrepresentations in the Emerick Memo. The\\nEmerick Memo states that “Dr. Ramos only met with [J. Endres] three times in total” and that\\nRamos did not meet with Endres before submitting her October 13th letter documenting her\\ntreatment of Endres. (Id. at ¶ 174.) Ramos objects to both statements, noting that she met with\\nEndres three times within a four-month period in 2015, including an August meeting about a\\nmonth before Endres took the HDS test. Ramos explained that she met with Endres more often\\nthan she does with most of her patients. The Emerick Memo also alleges that Ramos “simply\\nprepared the letter based upon the materials [Plaintiff’s] parents sent her via jump drive\\nregarding [Plaintiff’s] case.” (Id. at ¶ 176.) Ramos described that statement as “false,” noting\\nthat it “suggests that the views I expressed in my letter were somehow biased by information I\\nreceived from Mr. [Endres’s] parents.” (Id.) Finally, Endres accuses Emerick of falsely\\ncharacterizing his feelings toward his physicians and his medical care. Emerick allegedly told\\nRamos that Endres blamed her for the side effects he experienced on Strattera. Yet Endres\\nalleges that he never told Emerick that Ramos was responsible and maintains that he—not his\\nphysicians—wanted to try a different medicine. Endres hypothesizes that Emerick\\nmischaracterized his feelings to elicit a response from Ramos that would damage his credibility\\nbefore CAPP.\\n\\f No. 18-3825 Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., et al. Page 12\\n\\n\\n Endres filed his two-count complaint in federal court on November 16, 2017, naming\\nNEOMED, NEOMED president Jay Gershen, NEOMED’s board of trustees, and Emerick as\\ndefendants (“Defendants”). Endres’s first count, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleges that Gershen,\\nEmerick, and the board of trustees violated his constitutional rights by depriving him of his\\nproperty and liberty interests in enrollment at NEOMED without procedural due process. His\\nsecond count, under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Rehabilitation Act of\\n1973, alleges that NEOMED effectively concluded that his ADHD precluded him from\\ncompleting his medical studies—even though NEOMED could have made reasonable\\naccommodations to ensure that his ADHD-related symptoms would not create the appearance of\\nacademic misconduct.\\n\\n Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on statute of limitation grounds, contending\\nthat Endres’s two-year window to file his complaint started in October 2015, when CAPP first\\nconcluded that Endres should be dismissed. Emerick also claimed qualified immunity. The\\ndistrict court ruled for the Defendants, holding that the two-year statute of limitations barred\\nEndres’s suit and that in any case, Emerick is entitled to qualified immunity. Endres appeals that\\ndecision.\\n\\n II.\\n\\n We review de novo the district court’s dismissal of a complaint on statute of limitations\\ngrounds. Banks v. City of Whitehall, 344 F.3d 550, 553 (6th Cir. 2003). Neither § 1983, the\\nADA, nor the Rehabilitation Act provides a statute of limitations, so courts must borrow one\\nfrom the most analogous state cause of action. McCormick v. Miami Univ., 693 F.3d 654, 663\\n(6th Cir. 2012). This court has applied Ohio’s two-year statute of limitations governing personal\\ninjury actions to Ohio cases arising under § 1983, the ADA, and the Rehabilitation Act. Banks,\\n344 F.3d at 553 (applying two-year period to § 1983 suit); McCormick, 693 F.3d at 663\\n(applying two-year period to ADA suit); Bishop v. Children’s Ctr. for Dev. Enrichment,\\n618 F.3d 533, 536 (6th Cir. 2010) (applying two-year period to Rehabilitation Act suit). This\\nappeal, however, is not about the length of the limitations period, which both parties agree is two\\nyears. Rather, it turns on when the limitations period starts to run, and federal law holds the\\nanswer to that question. See Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 388 (2007). Under federal law, the\\n\\f No. 18-3825 Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., et al. Page 13\\n\\n\\nstatute of limitations period begins “when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury\\nwhich is the basis of his action.” Sevier v. Turner, 742 F.2d 262, 273 (6th Cir. 1984) (citations\\nomitted). Therein lies the heart of this dispute.\\n\\n Endres and Defendants agree that the injury triggering this suit is Endres’s dismissal from\\nNEOMED. But the disputed question is when Endres learned that he had no future at\\nNEOMED. According to Endres, the limitations period began on November 19, 2015, when he\\nlearned the outcome of the second CAPP hearing. If Endres is correct, then his claim is timely\\nbecause he filed his complaint on November 16, 2017, within the two-year statute of limitations.\\nBut Defendants say the limitations period began on October 22, 2015, when Endres learned the\\noutcome of the first CAPP hearing, and if they are correct, Endres’s claim is time-barred.\\n\\n Both parties point us to Delaware State College v. Ricks, in which the Supreme Court\\nheld that a college professor’s employment discrimination claim was time-barred. 449 U.S. 250,\\n254 (1980). The case warrants close study. After the plaintiff, Ricks, had been teaching at\\nDelaware State College for about three years, the college’s tenure committee recommended in\\nFebruary 1973 that he not receive tenure. Id. at 252. That committee agreed to reconsider its\\ndecision in a year, and it did so in February 1974, adhering to its original recommendation. Id.\\nNext, the faculty senate voted to approve the committee’s recommendation, and in March 1974,\\nthe board of trustees voted to deny Ricks tenure. Id. Ricks then filed a grievance with the\\nboard’s educational policy committee, and in May 1974, that committee took the grievance\\nunder consideration. Id. Although the college denied him tenure, Ricks was not immediately\\njobless. The college had a policy of providing junior faculty members who had been denied\\ntenure with a one-year terminal contract, and Ricks received one of those contracts on June 26,\\n1974. Id. at 253–54. The board informed Ricks on September 12, 1974, that it had denied his\\ngrievance, so Ricks left the college when his contract expired on June 30, 1975.\\n\\n Ricks turned to federal court for relief, filing his employment discrimination claim on\\nSeptember 9, 1977. Id. at 254. Up against a statute of limitations defense, Ricks argued that the\\nstatute of limitations period commenced on June 30, 1975, when his contract with the college\\nended. The Court rejected that argument, noting that the “termination of employment at\\nDelaware State is a delayed, but inevitable, consequence of the denial of tenure.” Id. at 257–58.\\n\\f No. 18-3825 Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., et al. Page 14\\n\\n\\nAccording to the Court, the limitations period began when the college communicated to Ricks its\\nfinal, official decision to deny him tenure. Id. at 259. That happened when the college offered\\nRicks a one-year terminal contract on June 26, 1974, by which point “the tenure committee had\\ntwice recommended that Ricks not receive tenure; the Faculty Senate had voted to support the\\ntenure committee’s recommendation; and the Board of Trustees formally had voted to deny\\nRicks tenure.” Ricks, 499 U.S. at 262. In short, the college “had established its official\\nposition—and made that position apparent to Ricks.” Id.\\n\\n Defendants contend that CAPP’s first decision to dismiss Endres commenced the statute\\nof limitations, calling CAPP’s October 22 letter an “unequivocal” signal that Endres’s “time at\\nNEOMED had come to an end.” (Appellee Br. at 24.) According to Defendants, Endres “must\\nhave known” that the first CAPP decision “constituted a rejection of his disability-based\\nassertions,” thus placing him on notice of his impending dismissal and triggering the limitations\\nperiod. (Id.) But for that argument to hold any weight, we would have to ignore the existence of\\nNEOMED’s appeals procedure. To be sure, NEOMED students are not entitled to an appeal as a\\nmatter of course. Only if a student sets forth “significant and compelling new information that\\nwas not available for presentation to the CAPP [ ] Committee, or evidence of a defect or\\nirregularity in the CAPP [ ] Committee proceeding” will the ERC consider the appeal. (R. 25,\\nMot. to Dismiss Appx. at PageID #690.) But Endres alleged precisely that—both that Emerick\\npresented evidence, including the Thewissen Analysis, that he never had a chance to review\\nbefore the first CAPP hearing (a procedural defect) and that his statistical analysis undermined\\nthe accuracy of the Thewissen Analysis (significant and compelling new information that he\\ncould have not presented until learning that the Thewissen Analysis existed). Far from\\n“establish[ing] its official position—and ma[king] that position apparent to [Endres],” the ERC\\nremanded the matter to CAPP, giving Endres a second chance to defend himself against\\nallegations of misconduct. Ricks, 499 U.S. at 262. NEOMED did not reach a final decision—\\nand communicate that decision to Endres—until it informed him on November 19 that the\\nsecond CAPP panel voted to dismiss him, at which point Endres had exhausted the appeals\\nprocess.\\n\\f No. 18-3825 Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., et al. Page 15\\n\\n\\n Citing Ricks, Defendants also contend that NEOMED’s appeals process is analogous to a\\ncollateral attack on CAPP’s decision, in which case Endres’s appeal would not have tolled the\\nstatute of limitations. In Ricks, the E.E.O.C. filed an amicus brief, arguing that the statute of\\nlimitations did not start until the college notified Ricks that it denied the grievance he filed after\\nthe board of trustees voted to deny him tenure. Id. at 260. The Court rejected that argument,\\ndrawing a critical distinction between collateral and direct review of a hiring decision. Although\\na meritorious grievance may well change the result of an adverse hiring decision, a grievance is a\\n“remedy for a prior decision, not an opportunity to influence that decision before it is made.” Id.\\nat 261 (emphasis in original). Thus, a pending grievance or “some other method of collateral\\nreview of an employment decision, does not toll the running of the limitations period.” Id.\\n(citing Elec. Workers v. Robbins & Myers, Inc., 429 U.S. 229 (1976)). But Ricks also suggests\\nthat the statute of limitations will not begin until the institution conveys its final decision to the\\nplaintiff. There, the Court did not select February 1973—when the college’s tenure committee\\nfirst recommended denying Ricks tenure—as the accrual date for Ricks’s claim. Not until the\\ntenure committee reevaluated that decision one year later, the faculty senate approved that\\ndecision, the board of trustees voted to deny Ricks tenure, and the college extended Ricks a one-\\nyear terminal contract did Ricks’s claim accrue.1\\n\\n Although Defendants are correct that a collateral challenge to a final decision will not toll\\nthe statute of limitations, their argument misses the mark because Endres’s appeal was not\\ncollateral. A collateral challenge necessarily implies the existence of a final decision, but\\nNEOMED’s own procedures tell us that the appeals process postpones the finality of a CAPP\\ndecision. For one, the student has four working days to appeal an adverse CAPP decision to the\\nERC. Failure to file an appeal within that timeline amounts to a “waiver of the right to appeal,\\nand the decision becomes final.” (R. 25, Mot. to Dismiss Appx. at PageID #691.) That of course\\nimplies that CAPP’s decision does not become final until—at the earliest—four working days\\n\\n\\n 1In a footnote, the Court hinted that the accrual date may have occurred in March 1974, when the college’s\\nboard of trustees voted to deny Ricks tenure, even though the district court held that Ricks’s claim accrued when the\\ncollege extended him a one-year terminal contract in June 1974. Ricks, 449 U.S. at 262 n.17. Ricks filed his\\ngrievance against the college after the board’s vote—but before the college offered the contract. In any event, the\\nCourt concluded that even if the claim accrued in June 1974, Ricks’s claim was still untimely, noting that “[w]e\\ncannot say that [the district court’s] decision was erroneous.” Id. at 262.\\n\\f No. 18-3825 Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., et al. Page 16\\n\\n\\nafter its issuance. Second, NEOMED’s procedures explain that if the ERC refuses to grant the\\nstudent’s appeal, the CAPP decision becomes final. Again, that implies that the CAPP decision\\nis not final while an appeal request is pending before the ERC or after the ERC grants the appeal\\nand remands the matter to CAPP for reconsideration, as it did here. And when the ERC remands\\nthe matter for reconsideration, it effectively gives the accused student another shot at proving his\\ninnocence. That is, the student gets another “opportunity to influence [CAPP’s] decision before\\nit is made.” Ricks, 449 U.S. at 261 (emphasis in original).\\n\\n Defendants’ arguments fare no better under this court’s precedents. Defendants draw our\\nattention to Janikowski v. Bendix Corp., in which we held that the plaintiff’s repeated requests\\nfor relief from an adverse decision did not toll the statute of limitations period for his\\nemployment discrimination claim. 823 F.2d 945, 948 (6th Cir. 1987). We find that comparison\\ninapt. In Janikowski, the plaintiff’s employer announced a workforce reduction plan and\\ninformed the plaintiff on September 4, 1980, that his position would end on September 30, 1981.\\nId. at 946. Following up in November 1980, the plaintiff’s employer sent him a memo,\\nreminding him that his position would no longer exist on September 30, 1981, and warning him\\nthat if he did not find a different position within the company, his employment with the company\\nwould also end. Id. The employer gave the plaintiff time off to interview, but as September\\n1981 approached, the plaintiff had still not found employment, either within the company or\\nelsewhere. Id. So the plaintiff negotiated to postpone his termination, and the employer agreed\\nto retain him on a month-to-month basis—but ultimately terminated him on November 30, 1981.\\nId.\\n\\n We agreed with the district court that the three-year statute of limitations barred the\\nplaintiff’s suit, which he filed more than three years after his claim accrued. We found that the\\naccrual date was September 4, 1980, when the plaintiff received “notice of termination, not when\\nhis employment actually cease[d].” Id. True, the employer accommodated the plaintiff, even\\nafter the September 30, 1981, deadline had passed, but there was never any question that the\\nemployer would terminate the plaintiff’s position. Although the plaintiff sought more time to\\n“avoid the consequences of the termination,” he knew on September 4, 1980, that his position\\nwould not exist in about a year. Accordingly, we repeated the Supreme Court’s remark that in a\\n\\f No. 18-3825 Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., et al. Page 17\\n\\n\\nstatute of limitations analysis, “the proper focus is on the time of the discriminatory act, not the\\npoint at which the consequences of the act become painful.” Id. at 947 (quoting Chardon v.\\nFernandez, 454 U.S. 6, 8 (1981)) (emphasis in original).\\n\\n Under Janikowski, Endres could not argue (nor does he) that his claim accrued when\\nNEOMED made him clear out his dorm room and leave campus, even if the consequences of\\nNEOMED’s decision were most painful then. Rather, our statute of limitations analysis focuses\\non the alleged wrong giving rise to the claim—here, NEOMED’s dismissal decision. Though it\\nwas always a foregone conclusion that the employer in Janikowski would terminate the\\nemployee’s position, Endres’s fate remained uncertain until the second CAPP panel voted to\\ndismiss him. Only then—by which point he had exhausted the appeals process—was there no\\ndoubt that Endres would have to leave NEOMED.\\n\\n As a last resort, Defendants argue it makes no difference that NEOMED provides an\\nappeals process because federal law controls when a claim accrues and the NEOMED handbook,\\nof course, is not federal law. Thus, Defendants claim that NEOMED’s procedures do not inform\\nour analysis. In support of that claim, Defendants cite Haeberle v. University of Louisville, in\\nwhich the plaintiff argued that because the University of Louisville is a “creature of the state of\\nKentucky, it is therefore subject to the interpretations of the Kentucky Supreme Court and the\\nKentucky legislature with respect to the finality of state entity decisions.” 90 F. App’x 895, 900\\n(6th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). We rejected that view, explaining that federal\\nlaw governs when the limitations period begins. Haeberle, however, is inapposite. Although the\\nplaintiff in Haeberle asked this court to apply Kentucky law—not federal law—to determine\\nwhen the statute of limitations commences, Endres makes no such request. Indeed, Endres does\\nnot challenge our principle that the statute of limitations starts “when the plaintiff knows or has\\nreason to know of the injury which is the basis of his action.” Sevier, 742 F.2d at 273. That\\nprinciple—one of federal law—does not keep us from considering how NEOMED’s policies\\nmay have informed Endres about his injury. That is not to say that the policies themselves have\\nindependent legal significance or that we are substituting the policies in place of our law.\\nRather, the policies help us determine when Endres knew that his time at NEOMED had ended.\\n\\f No. 18-3825 Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., et al. Page 18\\n\\n\\nThey reveal that until CAPP’s decision became final, Endres did not know for certain that he had\\nno future at NEOMED.\\n\\n For these reasons, we conclude that the statute of limitations did not start until November\\n19, 2015, when Endres learned that the second CAPP panel issued a final, non-appealable\\ndecision recommending his dismissal. Having filed his complaint within two years of that date,\\nEndres has satisfied the statute of limitations.\\n\\n III.\\n\\n Because Endres’s suit is timely, his claim under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act may\\ngo forward. But Endres also brings a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Sandra\\nEmerick violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights by depriving him of his liberty and property\\ninterests in continued enrollment at NEOMED without procedural due process.2 Emerick, a state\\nofficial named in her official and individual capacity, argued below that she is entitled to\\nqualified immunity on Endres’s § 1983 claim. Although the district court held that Endres’s\\nentire suit was time-barred, it also held in the alternative that Emerick is entitled to qualified\\nimmunity. Endres appeals that decision, which we review de novo. O’Brien v. City of Grand\\nRapids, 23 F.3d 990, 998 (6th Cir. 1994).\\n\\n In any qualified immunity analysis, we must answer two questions: (1) was there a\\nconstitutional violation; and (2) if so, was the right clearly established when the violation\\noccurred? Everson v. Leis, 556 F.3d 484, 494 (6th Cir. 2009). We consider each question in\\nturn.\\n\\n A.\\n\\n At the outset, Endres must show a constitutionally protected life, liberty, or property\\ninterest to prevail on his procedural due process claim. Endres alleges both a property and\\nliberty interest in his continued enrollment at NEOMED, and our case law supports—at the very\\n\\n 2Endres sued NEOMED president Jay Gershen and NEOMED’s board of trustees in their official\\ncapacities and Emerick in her official and individual capacity. As the district court noted, state defendants acting in\\ntheir official capacities are not “persons” under § 1983 with respect to claims for monetary damages. See, e.g.,\\nGean v. Hattaway, 330 F.3d 758, 766 (6th Cir. 2003). Thus, Endres cannot seek money damages under § 1983 from\\nGershen or NEOMED’s board of trustees.\\n\\f No. 18-3825 Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., et al. Page 19\\n\\n\\nleast—his alleged property interest. In Doe v. University of Cincinnati, we explained that a\\nuniversity’s decision to suspend the student for two years “clearly implicates a protected\\nproperty interest” in the student’s continued enrollment at the university. 872 F.3d 393, 399 (6th\\nCir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted). If a two-year suspension is sufficient, then surely\\npermanent dismissal is sufficient, too—and Emerick does not argue otherwise. Indeed, we have\\nrepeatedly held that a state-university student facing a significant disciplinary decision, such as\\nexpulsion, is entitled to “minimum due process protections.” Id.; Flaim v. Med. Coll. of Ohio,\\n418 F.3d 629, 633 (6th Cir. 2005).\\n\\n So how much process is enough? To be sure, universities are not courts, and an accused\\nstudent cannot expect the same procedural safeguards as a criminal defendant. Flaim, 418 F.3d\\nat 635 n.1. Still, our cases tell us there must be some process; how much depends on the basis of\\nthe dismissal. The Supreme Court has recognized a critical distinction between dismissals for\\ndisciplinary misconduct and dismissals for academic underperformance. Compare Goss v.\\nLopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975), with Bd. of Curators of Univ. of Mo. v. Horowitz, 435 U.S. 78\\n(1978). When a school imposes a serious sanction like dismissal to address a student’s\\ndisciplinary misconduct, the student is entitled to more robust process, including a hearing to\\n“present his side of the story.” Goss, 419 U.S. at 581. In Goss, one of the named plaintiffs, a\\npublic high school student, allegedly participated in a lunchroom melee that destroyed some\\nschool property, leaving high school administrators to resolve a binary, factual question: did the\\nstudent engage in that misconduct? Id. at 569 n.4. The administrators answered in the\\naffirmative and suspended the student without conducting a hearing, which, according to the\\nCourt, violated the student’s procedural due process rights. The Court held that when a student\\naccused of misconduct faces “total exclusion from the educational process for more than a trivial\\nperiod,” he is entitled to an “opportunity to present his side of the story.” Id. at 576, 581. Even\\nif the evidence looks stacked against the student, “things are not always as they seem to be.” Id.\\nat 584. Thus, hearings “provide a meaningful hedge against erroneous action” by, at the very\\nleast, allowing the student to alert administrators to factual disputes and breaks in causal chains.\\nId. at 583.\\n\\f No. 18-3825 Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., et al. Page 20\\n\\n\\n Academic inquiries, not always so cut-and-dry, are a different matter. In Horowitz, the\\nCourt held that a medical school did not violate a student’s due process rights when it dismissed\\nher without a hearing because the basis for that dismissal was academic. 435 U.S. at 89–90. In\\nthat case, the medical school faculty reported concerns with the student’s clinical performance,\\nnot to mention that the student’s attendance at clinical sessions was “erratic” and that the student\\n“lacked a critical concern for personal hygiene.” Id. at 81. The medical school did not\\nsummarily dismiss the student upon hearing these complaints but instead allowed her to spend\\ntime with seven physicians, who would evaluate her performance and recommend whether she\\nshould graduate on time. Id. Of those seven, two recommended that the medical school dismiss\\nthe student immediately; three recommended that the school postpone her graduation. Id. The\\nmedical school ultimately dismissed the student, id. at 82, so she sued, alleging that the medical\\nschool violated her due process rights. Id. at 91.\\n\\n The Court, however, found no constitutional violation. Unlike the factual question in\\nGoss—i.e., did the student engage in misconduct—the question that the medical school\\nadministrators had to resolve in Horowitz was far from objective. As the Court explained,\\nmeasuring a student’s academic performance “by its nature [is] more subjective and evaluative\\nthan the typical factual questions presented in the average disciplinary decision” and often\\nrequires “an expert evaluation of cumulative information.” Id. at 90. It is also less contentious.\\nAlthough a student with poor grades may face the same consequences (e.g., dismissal) as the\\nstudent accused of disciplinary misconduct, the educational process itself “is not by nature\\nadversar[ial]” and therefore not as “readily adapted to the procedural tools of judicial or\\nadministrative decisionmaking.” Id. Finally, in an academic context, the decision-makers are\\nnot drawn by lot to find facts, like we ask laymen to do as members of a jury. Rather, they\\nexercise their “historic judgment” as educators to evaluate the student, and their decision is\\nentitled to substantial deference. Id.\\n\\n In the end, the Court declined to “formalize the academic dismissal process by requiring\\na hearing.” Id. So long as the university’s evaluation and ultimate decision is “careful and\\ndeliberate,” the university meets the Due Process Clause’s requirements. Id. at 85. The upshot\\nfor students facing dismissal on academic grounds is that “the due process afforded is minimal.”\\n\\f No. 18-3825 Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., et al. Page 21\\n\\n\\nYoder v. Univ. of Louisville, 526 F. App’x 537, 549 (6th Cir. 2013) (citing Horowitz, 435 U.S. at\\n85; Ku v. Tennessee, 322 F.3d 431, 436 (6th Cir. 2003)). The university must provide the\\nstudent with notice of his unsatisfactory academic performance and deliver a “careful and\\ndeliberate” decision on the student’s fate. Ku, 322 F.3d at 436 (citing Horowitz, 435 U.S. at 85–\\n86). But the university need not provide a hearing.\\n\\n Whether Endres can show a constitutional violation turns on the basis for his dismissal.\\nEmerick claims that the dismissal was for academic reasons, meaning that NEOMED did not\\neven need to provide Endres with a hearing. Indeed, Emerick contends that Endres “received at\\nleast as much process as was required for an academic dismissal.” (Appellee Br. at 32.) Endres,\\nby contrast, alleges that allegations of cheating fall squarely on the disciplinary side of the\\ndisciplinary-academic divide, triggering more robust procedures under the Due Process Clause.\\n\\n As Emerick acknowledges, the boundary between disciplinary misconduct and\\nunsatisfactory performance can be hazy, but she offers two signs of when a dismissal rests on\\nacademic grounds: (1) the student’s conduct relates to the student’s prospects for success in his\\nchosen field; and (2) the university labels the student’s conduct as “academic” in its standing\\nprocedures. We consider each in turn.\\n\\n Emerick is correct that grades, by themselves, do not dictate a student’s prospects for\\nsuccess in his chosen field and that the university may consider more than just grades to assess a\\nstudent’s academic standing. Following Horowitz, this court has endorsed a broad view of what\\nconstitutes academic conduct. In Al-Dabagh v. Case Western Reserve University, we did not\\nsecond-guess the medical school’s decision to treat a student’s lack of professionalism as an\\nacademic matter. 777 F.3d 355, 357 (6th Cir. 2015). Although he performed well academically,\\nthe student arrived habitually late to important meetings, displayed a poor bedside manner\\naround patients, and harassed two female students at a school dance. Id. at 357–58. That\\nconduct prompted the medical school to contemplate dismissing the student, although the school\\nultimately settled on some lesser sanctions. Id. at 358. But the shoe finally dropped after a\\nNorth Carolina court convicted the student for drunk driving, at which point the medical school\\n\\f No. 18-3825 Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., et al. Page 22\\n\\n\\nconvened a committee and refused to certify him for graduation. 3 Id. The student sued, and\\nalthough he did not allege any due process deprivation, we said that his “dismissal on\\nprofessionalism grounds amounts to a deference-receiving academic judgment.” Id. at 359.\\nNoting that professionalism “has been a part of the doctor’s role since at least ancient Greece,”\\nwe explained that academic evaluations “may permissibly extend beyond raw grades and other\\nobjective criteria.” Id. at 360 (internal alterations, quotation marks, and citations omitted).\\n\\n Medical schools have no interest in credentialing students with dim prospects in the\\nmedical profession, be that because of low aptitude, poor hygiene, or drunkenness. And to the\\nextent that the medical profession demands certain traits in physicians, medical schools have\\ngood reason to ensure that their students possess those traits. Even so, it cannot be the case that\\nbecause the alleged misconduct somehow relates to a professional trait, the medical school need\\nonly treat the matter as academic and provide the student with minimal process. If that were so,\\nthe medical school could reasonably construe all types of misconduct as a sign of the student’s\\nlack-of-professionalism and thus avoid providing the student with the heighted procedures that\\nthe Due Process Clause may demand. To give an example, a medical school could treat\\nallegations of physical assault as academic, given that violent medical students might be likely to\\ndisobey the commandment that as physicians, they first do no harm. By treating those\\nallegations as academic rather than disciplinary, the university could dismiss the accused student\\nwithout providing him the opportunity to contest facts or present evidence of his innocence, even\\nthough this is exactly the type of situation that Goss says warrants a hearing. Such a broad\\nconception of academic conduct would swallow all forms of conduct, sweeping Goss into\\noblivion and obviating the need to ever hold a disciplinary hearing. For these reasons, the\\nrelationship between the conduct and the student’s future professional success cannot be what\\ndistinguishes academic and disciplinary conduct.\\n\\n Emerick points to a second sign that the conduct falls on the academic side of the\\ndisciplinary-academic divide: the label that the medical school affixes to the alleged misconduct.\\n\\n\\n 3After the student sued, the district court ordered the medical school to grant his diploma. Al-Dabagh,\\n777 F.3d at 358–59. The medical school did so—but then appealed to this court, and we reversed the district court’s\\norder. Id. at 361.\\n\\f No. 18-3825 Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., et al. Page 23\\n\\n\\nAccording to Emerick, the student handbook defines cheating as a form of academic misconduct,\\nwhich supports the inference that the basis for Endres’s dismissal was academic. Endres,\\nhowever, correctly identifies two problems with that inference—one specific to NEOMED’s\\npolices, the other more universal. First, NEOMED’s student handbook does not state that\\ncheating is necessarily academic. The student handbook categorizes cheating as a form of\\n“academic misconduct,” which itself is a type of “student misconduct.” (R. 25, Mot. to Dismiss\\nAppx. at PageID #618.) But NEOMED administrators have discretion over how to adjudicate\\nallegations of student misconduct. As the student handbook explains, NEOMED’s chief officer\\nof student affairs—here, Emerick—must consult with other administrators and decide whether\\nthe allegations are “best resolved through the formal disciplinary process . . . or by way of a\\nreferral to Committee on Academic and Professional Progress (CAPP) or some other mechanism\\nsuch as counseling or mediation.” (Id. at PageID #613.) That is, NEOMED—acting through\\nEmerick—gets to decide whether allegations of cheating merit a disciplinary hearing or some\\nother type of adjudication with less rigorous procedures. Nothing in the student handbook,\\nhowever, suggests that cheating necessarily falls on the academic side of the disciplinary-\\nacademic divide.\\n\\n The second problem with Emerick’s argument is more general. Whether the university\\ndescribes conduct as academic or disciplinary does not dictate what process the Constitution\\ndemands. As a default, it is the Constitution, not a university handbook, that establishes what\\nprocess is due: the Constitution sets “the floor or lowest level of procedures acceptable.” Flaim,\\n418 F.3d at 636; see also Heyne v. Metro. Nashville Pub. Schs., 655 F.3d 566, 569 (6th Cir.\\n2011). Of course, parties may agree by contract to waive their constitutional rights, such as\\nwhen a student agrees to warrantless searches of his dormitory room as a condition of living in a\\nuniversity building. See, e.g., Medlock v. Trs. of Indiana Univ., 738 F.3d 867, 872 (7th Cir.\\n2013). Such contracts, however, require “clear and unmistakable language” for us to infer that\\none party has agreed to waive his constitutional rights—language not present in NEOMED’s\\nstudent handbook. Morrison v. Warren, 375 F.3d 468, 474 (6th Cir. 2004).\\n\\n There is a more straightforward way to tell when the university’s decision is disciplinary\\nor academic. A decision is disciplinary when the university engages in first-level factfinding to\\n\\f No. 18-3825 Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., et al. Page 24\\n\\n\\nresolve a disputed, objective question about the student’s conduct—and the outcome of that\\ninquiry could lead to the student’s dismissal or a long suspension. Our method of distinguishing\\nacademic from disciplinary decisions is not something of our own creation. Rather, it tracks the\\ndistinction that the Supreme Court has drawn through Goss and Horowitz—and that courts have\\nfollowed. See, e.g., Fenje v. Feld, 398 F.3d 620, 625 (7th Cir. 2005) (describing disciplinary\\ndismissals as “being more objective in nature and not dependent upon the analytical expertise of\\nprofessional academicians”); Pugel v. Bd. of Tr. of Univ. of Ill., 378 F.3d 659, 663 (7th Cir.\\n2004) (“Courts addressing graduate student dismissals on charges of academic dishonesty\\ntraditionally have relied upon Goss.”).\\n\\n We underscore the critical difference between engaging in first-level factfinding and\\ndrawing subjective conclusions from established facts. Al-Dabagh draws out this distinction. In\\nthat case, the university refused to certify the student for graduation and effectively dismissed\\nhim for lack of professionalism—an academic decision—when it learned of his North Carolina\\nconviction for drunk driving. Al-Dabagh, 777 F.3d at 358–59. Although drunk driving might\\nseem like inherently disciplinary conduct, the university was not adjudicating whether the\\nstudent had, in fact, driven while intoxicated. Rather, the university had to decide, given the\\ncourt’s decision, whether the student possessed the necessary traits to succeed in the medical\\nprofession. That is a purely subjective inquiry, analogous to the university’s decision in\\nHorowitz, that does not warrant a hearing under the Due Process Clause.\\n\\n The same goes when the university evaluates a student’s academic performance. It is\\ntrue that this type of evaluation “also involves [questions] of objectively determinable fact—e.g.,\\nwhether the student gave certain answers on an examination.” Horowitz, 435 U.S. at 95 n.5\\n(Powell, J., concurring). But the purpose of the inquiry is not to answer an objective question\\nabout the student’s conduct. Rather, the university’s “critical decision requires a subjective,\\nexpert evaluation as to whether [the student’s] performance satisfies some predetermined\\nstandard of academic competence,” which itself “is set by a similarly expert judgment.” Id. This\\ncontrasts with a disciplinary inquiry, which “requires a factual determination as to whether the\\nconduct took place or not” and thus warrants more rigorous protections under the Due Process\\nClause. Id.\\n\\f No. 18-3825 Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., et al. Page 25\\n\\n\\n What does this all mean for Endres? Emerick referred the cheating allegations to CAPP,\\nwhich then resolved a disputed, objective question: whether Endres cheated on the September\\n28 test. In answering that question, CAPP engaged in first-level factfinding and ultimately\\ndismissed Endres, no doubt a serious sanction. The basis for Endres’s dismissal was\\ndisciplinary, calling for more rigorous procedures under the Due Process Clause.\\n\\n The next question is whether the process Endres received was sufficient. When a\\nuniversity student faces a serious sanction like dismissal over allegations of disciplinary\\nmisconduct, he is entitled to a “fundamentally fair hearing.” Flaim, 418 F.3d at 635 n.1 (citation\\nomitted). Endres received a hearing. But his allegations, which we must take as true at this\\nstage, reveal that hearing was far from fair. For one, the student has a “right to be present for all\\nsignificant portions of the hearing,” provided the hearing is live. Flaim, 418 F.3d at 635. And\\neven when the hearing is not live, the university must “provide the accused with the opportunity\\nto ‘respond, explain, and defend.’” Id. (quoting Gorman v. Univ. of R.I., 837 F.2d 7, 13 (1st Cir.\\n1988)). Endres, however, alleges he was not allowed in the room while Emerick presented her\\ncase to the CAPP panels. That alone establishes a due process violation, but Endres’s allegations\\ndo not end there.\\n\\n Doe also says that the university must provide the student with “an explanation of the\\nevidence” against him, but Endres’s allegations show that NEOMED repeatedly failed on this\\nfront. 872 F.3d at 399–400. According to Endres, Emerick presented a statistical analysis to the\\nfirst CAPP panel showing that the odds he and Student B would have six identical wrong\\nanswers was 0.000036%. But that evidence—the Thewissen Analysis—was not present when\\nEndres reviewed his student file before the hearing. Moreover, NEOMED did not allow Endres\\nto listen in when Emerick presented the Thewissen Analysis and the rest of the case against him.\\nWithout knowing that the Thewissen Analysis even existed, Endres could not have responded to\\nwhat seemed like incontrovertible proof that he was a cheater.\\n\\n Even if the second CAPP hearing cured the defects of the first hearing, the second\\nhearing was not flawless. Again, NEOMED excluded Endres from the room while Emerick\\npresented her case. And once more, NEOMED failed to inform Endres of the key evidence\\nagainst him. After the second CAPP panel dismissed him, Endres reviewed his student file and\\n\\f No. 18-3825 Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., et al. Page 26\\n\\n\\ndiscovered a memo Emerick had drafted, which summarized her conversations with two of his\\nphysicians. Endres not only alleges that Emerick discussed the memo as she presented her case\\nto the second CAPP committee—but also that its content was false. Both physicians provided\\nsworn affidavits in which they disputed Emerick’s account of their conversations, but those\\naffidavits were of no use once the second CAPP panel voted to dismiss Endres, marking the end\\nof the appeals process. Without knowledge of the memo’s existence, Endres could not “present\\nhis side of the story.” Doe, 872 F.3d at 400 (citation omitted).\\n\\n B.\\n\\n Endres has alleged more than enough to establish a due process violation, but that does\\nnot end the matter. Because Emerick has claimed qualified immunity, Endres must also show\\nthat the constitutional rights Emerick violated were clearly established when the violation\\noccurred. See DiLuzio v. Vill. of Yorkville, 796 F.3d 604, 608–09 (6th Cir. 2015). “For a right to\\nbe clearly established, the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable officer\\nwould understand that what he is doing violates that right.” McGlone v. Bell, 681 F.3d 718, 735\\n(6th Cir. 2012).\\n\\n Emerick alleges that the law defining Endres’s due process rights was not clearly\\nestablished, and on this front, she is correct. To be sure, the Supreme Court’s decisions in Goss\\nand Horowitz make clear that a student facing a serious sanction for disciplinary misconduct is\\nentitled to a fair hearing, but neither those cases nor our own decisions have articulated a bright-\\nline rule to distinguish academic from disciplinary matters. Moreover, clearly established law\\n“must be ‘particularized’ to the facts of the case,” yet no case from the Supreme Court or this\\ncourt has held that cheating is a disciplinary matter warranting more robust procedures under the\\nDue Process Clause. White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548, 552 (2017) (per curiam) (quoting Anderson\\nv. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987)). And because no precedent clearly established that\\nEndres was even entitled to a hearing, it follows that his right to be present at the hearing and to\\nhear the evidence against him was not clearly established, either. We therefore hold that\\nEmerick is entitled to qualified immunity.\\n\\f No. 18-3825 Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., et al. Page 27\\n\\n\\n We note, however, that qualified immunity “‘only immunizes defendants from monetary\\ndamages’—not injunctive or declaratory relief.” Kanuszewski v. Mich. Dep’t of Health and\\nHuman Servs., 927 F.3d 396, 417–18 (6th Cir. 2019) (quoting Williams v. Com. of Ky., 24 F.3d\\n1526, 1541 (6th Cir. 1994)); see also Ward v. Polite, 667 F.3d 727, 742 (6th Cir. 2012). Thus,\\nour ruling shields Emerick from monetary damages. But the qualified immunity doctrine does\\nnot preclude Endres from continuing to pursue the injunctive and declaratory relief that he has\\nalso requested in his § 1983 claim.\\n\\n IV.\\n\\n We REVERSE the district court’s dismissal of Endres’s complaint and AFFIRM the\\ndistrict court’s alternative holding that Emerick is immune from monetary damages on Endres’s\\n§ 1983 claim.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4435053/\", \"author_raw\": \"NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judge\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"MERRITT"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"KETHLEDGE"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"NALBANDIAN"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"MERRITT\": \", Circuit\", \"KETHLEDGE\": \", Circuit\", \"NALBANDIAN\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4657800/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":8,"string":"8"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: J. Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-08-30\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0222p.06\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\n\n\n\n J. ENDRES, ┐\n Plaintiff-Appellant, │\n │\n │\n v. │\n > No. 18-3825\n │\n NORTHEAST OHIO MEDICAL UNIVERSITY; NORTHEAST │\n OHIO MEDICAL UNIVERSITY BOARD OF TRUSTEES; │\n SANDRA EMERICK; JAY A. GERSHEN, │\n Defendants-Appellees. │\n ┘\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court\n for the Northern District of Ohio at Akron.\n No. 5:17-cv-02408—Sara E. Lioi, District Judge.\n\n Argued: May 2, 2019\n\n Decided and Filed: August 30, 2019\n\n Before: MERRITT, KETHLEDGE, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.\n\n _________________\n\n COUNSEL\n\nARGUED: John S. Marshall, MARSHALL AND FORMAN LLC, Columbus, Ohio, for\nAppellant. Todd R. Marti, OFFICE OF THE OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbus, Ohio,\nfor Appellees. ON BRIEF: John S. Marshall, MARSHALL AND FORMAN LLC, Columbus,\nOhio, for Appellant. Todd R. Marti, Anthony J. Farris, OFFICE OF THE OHIO ATTORNEY\nGENERAL, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellees.\n\f No. 18-3825 Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., et al. Page 2\n\n\n _________________\n\n OPINION\n _________________\n\n NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judge. Northeast Ohio Medical University (“NEOMED”)\ndismissed Julian Endres, a medical student, for cheating on a test. Endres denies cheating, but\nhis guilt or innocence is not relevant to this appeal. Instead, this appeal presents two questions.\nThe first concerns when Endres should have brought the claims that he brings here. And the\nsecond concerns what process the school should have afforded him before dismissing him. After\nhis dismissal, Endres sued NEOMED, its president and board of trustees, and a NEOMED\nadministrator, Sandra Emerick, alleging violations of his right to procedural due process, along\nwith the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. But before\nconsidering the substance of those claims, the district court dismissed Endres’s complaint as\nuntimely. The district court also held that even if Endres’s due process claim were timely,\nEmerick is entitled to qualified immunity. Endres appeals that decision.\n\n We hold that Endres’s claims are timely and REVERSE the district court’s dismissal of\nhis complaint. Endres has also alleged facts which, taken as true, establish several violations of\nhis procedural due process rights. But because the contours of those rights were not clearly\nestablished, we AFFIRM the district court’s grant of qualified immunity to Emerick, which\nimmunizes her from damages though not from injunctive relief.\n\n I.\n\n Julian Endres has Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”). Since his\ndiagnosis at age six, Endres has taken medication to treat that condition, beginning with Ritalin,\nand he seemed to manage well. Endres graduated from high school as valedictorian and enrolled\nin the accelerated B.S./M.D. program at the Northeast Ohio Medical University (“NEOMED”), a\npublic university. After completing his undergraduate studies in two years, graduating magna\ncum laude, Endres began medical school.\n\n When Endres started his second semester of medical school, he experienced a new side\neffect from Ritalin. Endres alleges that around March 2015, he felt that the medicine was over-\n\f No. 18-3825 Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., et al. Page 3\n\n\nsedating him and making him lethargic—so he stopped taking it altogether. By that time, Endres\nhad passed fourteen of the fifteen required classes to complete his first year of medical school,\nbut he still had one class left. No longer on Ritalin, Endres failed that class. So NEOMED made\nEndres repeat the entire first-year curriculum during the following academic year, including the\nfourteen classes he had passed.\n\n Before he returned to NEOMED that fall, Endres consulted with his physicians to find a\nmedicine that would treat his ADHD without inducing the unwanted side-effects, and in August\n2015, Endres switched to Strattera. Endres alleges that Strattera helped him concentrate without\nmaking him feel drowsy but that it was not a magic bullet. Unlike Ritalin, Strattera did not\nsuppress his fidgeting. Even so, he stuck with the new medicine.\n\n The Test. Back at NEOMED, Endres re-enrolled in the mandatory first-year curriculum,\nincluding Human Development and Structure (“HDS”), taught by Professor Hans Thewissen. It\nmade no difference that Endres passed HDS the prior year because he had to retake all first-year\nclasses.\n\n Tests at NEOMED are a serious undertaking. Students take their tests on NEOMED’s\nlaptops, using a special software program that allows them to zoom in and out and manipulate\nthe images on the screen. Endres alleges that NEOMED’s laptops are set at the lowest\nbrightness level and that students cannot make the screen any brighter. And while students are\ntaking tests, NEOMED officials are watching—both with their own eyes and with a camera that\nrecords students taking examinations. Students knew that NEOMED was filming them. Indeed,\nEndres had worked part-time as an assistant, helping NEOMED professors set up the camera to\nrecord class lectures.\n\n This case involves the 25-question test Endres took on September 28, 2015, as part of the\nHDS course. Endres sat directly in front of the camera. And as it turned out, the camera focused\non Endres throughout much of the test. Footage from the test reveals Endres fidgeting and\nrepeatedly glancing toward his right—and in the direction of his seatmate’s (“Student B”) laptop.\nEndres concedes that his eye movements and sideways glances might look suspicious to\nsomeone watching the video with no context, but he offers an alternate explanation. According\n\f No. 18-3825 Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., et al. Page 4\n\n\nto Endres, Student B repeatedly used the software’s zoom feature, which created brief flashes of\nlight that caused Endres to look repeatedly to the source. In any event, Endres contends that it\nwas physically impossible to see any legible content on the laptop to his right, both because he\nwas sitting about five feet away, and because all laptops were set to the lowest brightness level.\n\n When the test ended, one of the proctors completed an irregularity report, noting that\nEndres appeared to look repeatedly at the laptop to his right—but that perhaps he was just\nnervous. That report made its way to Sandra Emerick, NEOMED’s chief officer of student\naffairs. And so NEOMED’s investigation of Endres began.\n\n The Investigation and Referral to CAPP. Endres alleges that Emerick began a three-day\ninvestigation into his conduct during the September 28 test. Emerick reviewed the video\nrecording of the test and obtained Endres’s and Student B’s answer keys, which revealed that\n84% of their answers were identical. Student B and Endres answered the same six questions\nincorrectly, the same fifteen questions correctly, and the same four questions differently. In the\nend, Endres scored a 72 while Student B scored a 64. The class mean was a 56.5. Emerick then\nsent her findings to several university administrators and professors, including Thewissen,\nwriting that the video footage “clearly” showed Endres “viewing peer’s computer screen\nrepeatedly during the exam,” and noting in boldface that “84% of the tests were identical.”\n(R. 23, First Am. Compl. at ¶ 47.)\n\n NEOMED’s student handbook outlines various procedures to address allegations of\nstudent misconduct, including cheating, and gives NEOMED administrators discretion over\nwhich procedures to use. Under the handbook, the chief officer of student affairs works with\nseveral administrators to decide where to refer misconduct allegations. The administrators have\nthree basic options—they may refer the allegations to: (1) a formal disciplinary body; (2) the\nCommittee on Academic and Professional Progress (“CAPP”); or (3) a less formal process, such\nas counseling or mediation. When administrators refer a matter to the formal disciplinary body,\nthe student has a right to an adversarial hearing—where he may learn the evidence against him,\ncross-examine witnesses, and present evidence in his defense.\n\f No. 18-3825 Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., et al. Page 5\n\n\n Emerick referred the matter to CAPP, which reviews issues related to academic\nperformance and professionalism. CAPP accepted the referral and later sent Endres a letter\nnotifying him that he had to attend a hearing on October 21, where a panel would discuss the\n“professionalism concern,” as well as Endres’s “overall educational performance.” (Id. at ¶ 80.)\nThe letter instructed Endres to review his student file and to complete a student interview form\nwith Emerick, which Emerick would then add to his student file and present to CAPP at the\nhearing.\n\n Emerick Meets with Endres. After referring the matter to CAPP, Emerick called Endres\nfor a brief meeting on October 7, marking the first time that he learned of the allegations against\nhim. Endres alleges that he was “completely stunned” to learn that he stood accused of cheating.\n(Id. at ¶ 72.) And when Emerick showed Endres footage of the test, Endres alleges he was\n“shell-shocked to see how ‘bad’ his fidgeting and side-glances caused by distractions looked.”\n(Id.) Endres informed Emerick that he had recently switched from Ritalin to Strattera, which did\nnot suppress his fidgeting, so Emerick requested that Endres provide documentation from his\ndoctor about the medication change. Less than a week later, Endres’s doctor, Dr. Caroline\nRamos, sent Emerick a letter describing Endres’s ADHD, along with medical records\ndocumenting Endres’s medication adjustment between April and August 2015. Ramos stated\nthat she viewed the video recording and found that Endres’s behavior during the test mimicked\nthe fidgeting that Endres had described at an April 2015 appointment. Ramos also suggested that\nbecause Endres had recently started the Strattera, NEOMED should make certain\naccommodations for him, especially so that no one would misinterpret his fidgeting as academic\nmisconduct.\n\n After the initial meeting, Endres emailed Emerick about his case. Endres explained to\nEmerick that the position of the laptops prevented a test-taker from viewing any meaningful\ninformation on a nearby laptop. So Endres requested that CAPP recreate the testing conditions\nthrough a “field test,” which would prove that it was impossible to cheat. Endres alleges that\nEmerick never responded to that request. In the same email, however, Endres requested\ninformation and evidence on his case, and Emerick responded to that request, explaining that his\n\f No. 18-3825 Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., et al. Page 6\n\n\nofficial student file contained all information from the investigation that she would present to\nCAPP.\n\n On October 14, Endres visited the student enrollment office to review his file. Endres\nalleges that he found a folder containing all of his records since he applied to NEOMED as a\nhigh-school student—and in no particular order. According to Endres, his file contained only\ntwo records related to the misconduct allegation: (1) an email from Emerick, referring the matter\nto CAPP; and (2) Endres’s and Student B’s answer keys to the September 28 test. Endres alleges\nthat the proctor’s irregularity report was missing from his file, prompting him to email Emerick\nand request to view the report. Endres returned to the student enrollment office the next day to\nview the report, which was then in the file.\n\n Endres met once more with Emerick before the CAPP hearing. He alleges that Emerick\ndid not discuss any information about his case or describe to him the evidence that she would\npresent before CAPP. Endres then submitted his student interview form, a personal statement, a\nstatement from Dr. Ramos, and his medical records, which CAPP could review during the\nhearing.\n\n The First CAPP Hearing. CAPP conducted the first hearing on October 21. CAPP\nprocedures allow the accused student to speak to his unsatisfactory performance and respond to\nquestions from committee members but do not allow the accused student in the room while the\ncommittee reviews documents about his case. So the meeting began with Emerick in the room,\npresenting the case against Endres, while Endres waited down the hall. After Emerick finished\nher presentation, the panel allowed Endres into the room, and he presented his case. Endres\nexplained to the panel that it would be physically impossible to commit the alleged misconduct\nand described the field test he conducted with three randomly selected NEOMED students.\nAccording to Endres, all three students agreed that it was impossible to view any information on\nthe laptop immediately to their right—even if they turned their heads and stared directly at the\nlaptop. Endres also explained his sideways glances, telling the panel about his recent medication\nchange and that Strattera did not suppress his fidgeting or movements. And Endres noted that\nthe flashes of light from Student B’s computer repeatedly distracted him during the test. As\nEndres explained, NEOMED’s laptop software allows students to zoom in on pictures and\n\f No. 18-3825 Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., et al. Page 7\n\n\ndiagrams, causing a color change on the laptop screen—and for Endres, a flash appearing in the\ncorner of his eyes. This prompted him to turn repeatedly to his right, whenever his seatmate\nadjusted the content on the laptop. Finally, Endres discussed the exam answers themselves.\nAlthough Endres did not have the answer keys for the entire class, he explained that the\npercentage of identical answers that two students might share simply turns on their scores and\nthe number of correctly or incorrectly answered questions. According to Endres, the normal\ndistribution range of similarity for two students who scored a 64 and a 72 (Student B’s score and\nEndres’s score, respectively) would be between 64% and 92%. Thus, Endres explained that the\nfact that he and Student B answered 84% of the questions identically was unremarkable.\n\n After Endres completed his 30-minute presentation, the panel questioned him about why\nhe did not request an accommodation before taking the test. Endres explained that before\nSeptember 28, he had not taken any test while on Strattera and that he had never needed any\naccommodations while on Ritalin. Endres alleges that Emerick remained in the room throughout\nhis presentation and the panel’s questions. But according to Endres, the panel did not inform\nEndres about any part of Emerick’s presentation, nor did the panel ask Endres any questions\nrelated to that presentation.\n\n Endres left the room, and the panel began its deliberations with Emerick still present.\nEmerick called Endres the next day, telling him that the panel found him responsible for the\nmisconduct. Endres later received an email informing him of the consequences of CAPP’s\ndecision. He could: (1) withdraw within four days, in which case his transcript would state that\nhe had withdrawn; (2) accept the decision for dismissal, in which case his transcript would state\nthat he had been dismissed; or (3) request an appeal of CAPP’s decision if there is “significant\nand compelling new information” unavailable at the hearing or if he had evidence that there was\na defect or irregularity in the proceedings. (Id. at ¶ 118.)\n\n Endres and His Parents Meet with Emerick. Two days after the hearing, Endres and his\nparents met with Emerick. Emerick discussed the evidence that she presented during the hearing\nand that the committee relied on in reaching its decision. One key piece of evidence was a\nstatistical analysis from Professor Thewissen (“Thewissen Analysis”), which claimed that there\nwas a 0.000036% chance that two students would have six identical wrong answers. Endres\n\f No. 18-3825 Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., et al. Page 8\n\n\nalleges that this was the first time he learned about the Thewissen Analysis and that the analysis\nwas not present when he reviewed his student file before the hearing. The other key piece of\nevidence was Emerick’s verbal interpretation of the video recording from the test. Emerick\nrelayed to Endres and his parents that the panel did not believe that his ADHD caused his eye\nmovements and that he should have used his right hand to shield his eyes from the occasional\nflashes of light.\n\n Endres Files Appeal, Requests Additional Evidence. NEOMED’s student handbook\nprovides students with a limited right of appeal. The Executive Review Committee (“ERC”)\nconsiders appeals—but only if the student presents “significant and compelling new information\nthat was not available for presentation [to CAPP], or evidence of a defect or irregularity in the\nCAPP [ ] Committee proceeding.” (R. 25, Mot. to Dismiss Appx. at PageID #691.) The student\nmust file an appeal (NEOMED calls it a “Petition for Executive Review”) within four working\ndays after learning of CAPP’s decision, and if he fails to file an appeal in that time, CAPP’s\n“decision becomes final.” (Id.) Moreover, CAPP’s decision becomes final if the ERC declines\nto accept the appeal. (Id.)\n\n After the meeting with Emerick, Endres requested additional evidence related to the\nexam, which he planned to introduce on appeal. In particular, Endres sought: (1) the student\nperformance report for the entire HDS class, containing each individual score and answer key;\n(2) the Thewissen Analysis; and (3) timestamp reports from the laptop software, showing\nprecisely when Student B and Endres answered each exam question. Although NEOMED first\ndeclined to provide Endres with this evidence, it ultimately turned over those records on the eve\nof Endres’s deadline to appeal.\n\n Hours later, Endres filed his appeal with the ERC and submitted new evidence, including:\n(1) hundreds of test comparisons based on the actual data from the HDS class, which Endres\nalleges undermined the Thewissen Analysis and the fact that his answers and Student B’s\nanswers were 84% similar; (2) signatures from HDS students, who agreed that it was impossible\nto view content on a nearby laptop; and (3) a psychological evaluation from Dr. Andrew\nTrauben, a psychiatrist specializing in ADHD, who reviewed the video of the test and met with\nEndres to evaluate his symptoms. Endres tried to submit additional evidence after filing his\n\f No. 18-3825 Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., et al. Page 9\n\n\nappeal, including his own statistical analysis that allegedly debunked the Thewissen Analysis.\nHours before the ERC hearing, however, Emerick emailed Endres to notify him that the ERC\nwould not accept his report and that he could not distribute copies of that report to ERC\nmembers.\n\n The ERC Hearing. The ERC conducted a hearing on November 2, using the same\nprocedures as CAPP. This meant that Emerick presented her case while Endres waited outside\nthe room until it was his turn to speak. Endres then entered the room, and although he could not\ndistribute copies of his statistical analysis, he described that analysis—as well as flaws in\nEmerick’s statistical comparison and the Thewissen Analysis. As Endres explained, Emerick’s\nstatistical comparison—that he and Student B had answered 84% of the questions identically—\nproved no misconduct. Of the 160 HDS students who took the exam, more than 80 students had\n85% similar answers with at least one other student in the class. And more than two-thirds of the\nclass had six or more identical wrong answers with at least one other student in the class.\nAccording to Endres, that data refuted the Thewissen Analysis’s claim that the probability two\nstudents would mistakenly answer the same six questions was 0.000036%.\n\n The next day, Endres received a letter from the ERC granting him a rehearing before\nCAPP but restricting the information he could present. While Endres could introduce Trauben’s\nreport, he could not submit any evidence contesting the Thewissen Analysis.\n\n The Second CAPP Hearing. Knowing that CAPP would not consider his statistical\nanalysis, Endres sent test data to Thewissen and asked him to defend his findings given the full\nclass data. Thewissen declined to review the data, and NEOMED’s legal counsel later informed\nEndres that Thewissen was not open to making any statement about potential errors in his\nanalysis. That said, NEOMED’s legal counsel told Endres that the CAPP committee had agreed\nto allow Trauben to speak at the hearing—and that the committee members would have some\nquestions for the physician.\n\n Several hours before the second CAPP hearing on November 18, NEOMED’s legal\ncounsel issued a limiting instruction to the CAPP:\n\f No. 18-3825 Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., et al. Page 10\n\n\n Please be advised that during our deliberations today, the Committee should\n accord no weight to any statement made or documents presented during the initial\n hearing in [Endres’s] CAPP case that recounted any statistical analysis performed\n on his test answers. Consistent with disregarding any statements made or\n documents presented about any statistical analysis, the committee is to likewise\n accord no weight to any documents set forth by [Endres] throughout his appeal\n that include any statistical analysis of his test answers. While these documents\n were included in the record received by the Committee in advance of today’s\n meeting, they should not be considered during our review of this matter today, or\n in making a decision.\n\n(R. 23, First Am. Compl. at ¶ 157.) This meant that Endres could not discuss the Thewissen\nAnalysis or distribute any material about that analysis at the hearing. Nor could Endres\nintroduce recorded video from a field test, which he alleges proved that it was physically\nimpossible to view content on a neighboring laptop.\n\n The second CAPP hearing proceeded much like the first hearing. Emerick presented her\ncase, after which Endres entered the room to present his version of events. Endres alleges that\nCAPP only allowed him to speak generally and that he could not present, distribute, or discuss\nany material that would have exonerated him, such as a video recording from a field test he\nconducted. According to Endres, the recording would have proven that it was physically\nimpossible for any student to view content on a neighboring laptop. CAPP then called Trauben,\nwho reiterated that Endres’s behavior during the test was a manifestation of his ADHD. Endres\nalleges that the committee asked Trauben some questions about his credentials and qualifications\nto write the report he submitted on behalf of Endres. The next day—November 19, 2015—\nEndres learned that the committee had voted to dismiss him.\n\n The Emerick Memo. Several days after the second CAPP hearing, Endres obtained a hard\ncopy of his student file, which he alleges contained information he had not reviewed before that\nhearing. Endres reviewed the file on November 11, when it was supposed to include all evidence\nand information that Emerick would present at the second CAPP hearing. But when he reviewed\nthe file after that hearing, it contained new evidence: a memo from Emerick (“Emerick Memo”),\ndated November 2.\n\f No. 18-3825 Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., et al. Page 11\n\n\n Endres alleges that the Emerick Memo inaccurately summarizes Emerick’s conversations\nwith two of his physicians, Ramos and Trauben. Indeed, Ramos and Trauben submitted\naffidavits stating that the Emerick Memo did not faithfully memorialize their conversations with\nEmerick and that its content was either false, misleading, or taken out of context. For example,\nthe Emerick Memo states that Trauben “understood that he needed a quick turn around on\ndocumentation in order to submit a CAPP appeal letter.” (Id. at ¶ 171.) But Trauben explained\nin his affidavit that “[t]hat sentence appears to suggest that my analysis of Mr. [Endres], or the\nopinion I rendered, was compromised because of the timeframe in which it was completed. That\nis not so, and it is not something I ever conveyed to [Defendant Emerick.]” (Id.) Trauben\nconcluded that Emerick “did not faithfully memorialize the contents of our telephone call.” (Id.\nat ¶ 173.)\n\n Ramos recounted similar inaccuracies and misrepresentations in the Emerick Memo. The\nEmerick Memo states that “Dr. Ramos only met with [J. Endres] three times in total” and that\nRamos did not meet with Endres before submitting her October 13th letter documenting her\ntreatment of Endres. (Id. at ¶ 174.) Ramos objects to both statements, noting that she met with\nEndres three times within a four-month period in 2015, including an August meeting about a\nmonth before Endres took the HDS test. Ramos explained that she met with Endres more often\nthan she does with most of her patients. The Emerick Memo also alleges that Ramos “simply\nprepared the letter based upon the materials [Plaintiff’s] parents sent her via jump drive\nregarding [Plaintiff’s] case.” (Id. at ¶ 176.) Ramos described that statement as “false,” noting\nthat it “suggests that the views I expressed in my letter were somehow biased by information I\nreceived from Mr. [Endres’s] parents.” (Id.) Finally, Endres accuses Emerick of falsely\ncharacterizing his feelings toward his physicians and his medical care. Emerick allegedly told\nRamos that Endres blamed her for the side effects he experienced on Strattera. Yet Endres\nalleges that he never told Emerick that Ramos was responsible and maintains that he—not his\nphysicians—wanted to try a different medicine. Endres hypothesizes that Emerick\nmischaracterized his feelings to elicit a response from Ramos that would damage his credibility\nbefore CAPP.\n\f No. 18-3825 Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., et al. Page 12\n\n\n Endres filed his two-count complaint in federal court on November 16, 2017, naming\nNEOMED, NEOMED president Jay Gershen, NEOMED’s board of trustees, and Emerick as\ndefendants (“Defendants”). Endres’s first count, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleges that Gershen,\nEmerick, and the board of trustees violated his constitutional rights by depriving him of his\nproperty and liberty interests in enrollment at NEOMED without procedural due process. His\nsecond count, under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Rehabilitation Act of\n1973, alleges that NEOMED effectively concluded that his ADHD precluded him from\ncompleting his medical studies—even though NEOMED could have made reasonable\naccommodations to ensure that his ADHD-related symptoms would not create the appearance of\nacademic misconduct.\n\n Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on statute of limitation grounds, contending\nthat Endres’s two-year window to file his complaint started in October 2015, when CAPP first\nconcluded that Endres should be dismissed. Emerick also claimed qualified immunity. The\ndistrict court ruled for the Defendants, holding that the two-year statute of limitations barred\nEndres’s suit and that in any case, Emerick is entitled to qualified immunity. Endres appeals that\ndecision.\n\n II.\n\n We review de novo the district court’s dismissal of a complaint on statute of limitations\ngrounds. Banks v. City of Whitehall, 344 F.3d 550, 553 (6th Cir. 2003). Neither § 1983, the\nADA, nor the Rehabilitation Act provides a statute of limitations, so courts must borrow one\nfrom the most analogous state cause of action. McCormick v. Miami Univ., 693 F.3d 654, 663\n(6th Cir. 2012). This court has applied Ohio’s two-year statute of limitations governing personal\ninjury actions to Ohio cases arising under § 1983, the ADA, and the Rehabilitation Act. Banks,\n344 F.3d at 553 (applying two-year period to § 1983 suit); McCormick, 693 F.3d at 663\n(applying two-year period to ADA suit); Bishop v. Children’s Ctr. for Dev. Enrichment,\n618 F.3d 533, 536 (6th Cir. 2010) (applying two-year period to Rehabilitation Act suit). This\nappeal, however, is not about the length of the limitations period, which both parties agree is two\nyears. Rather, it turns on when the limitations period starts to run, and federal law holds the\nanswer to that question. See Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 388 (2007). Under federal law, the\n\f No. 18-3825 Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., et al. Page 13\n\n\nstatute of limitations period begins “when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury\nwhich is the basis of his action.” Sevier v. Turner, 742 F.2d 262, 273 (6th Cir. 1984) (citations\nomitted). Therein lies the heart of this dispute.\n\n Endres and Defendants agree that the injury triggering this suit is Endres’s dismissal from\nNEOMED. But the disputed question is when Endres learned that he had no future at\nNEOMED. According to Endres, the limitations period began on November 19, 2015, when he\nlearned the outcome of the second CAPP hearing. If Endres is correct, then his claim is timely\nbecause he filed his complaint on November 16, 2017, within the two-year statute of limitations.\nBut Defendants say the limitations period began on October 22, 2015, when Endres learned the\noutcome of the first CAPP hearing, and if they are correct, Endres’s claim is time-barred.\n\n Both parties point us to Delaware State College v. Ricks, in which the Supreme Court\nheld that a college professor’s employment discrimination claim was time-barred. 449 U.S. 250,\n254 (1980). The case warrants close study. After the plaintiff, Ricks, had been teaching at\nDelaware State College for about three years, the college’s tenure committee recommended in\nFebruary 1973 that he not receive tenure. Id. at 252. That committee agreed to reconsider its\ndecision in a year, and it did so in February 1974, adhering to its original recommendation. Id.\nNext, the faculty senate voted to approve the committee’s recommendation, and in March 1974,\nthe board of trustees voted to deny Ricks tenure. Id. Ricks then filed a grievance with the\nboard’s educational policy committee, and in May 1974, that committee took the grievance\nunder consideration. Id. Although the college denied him tenure, Ricks was not immediately\njobless. The college had a policy of providing junior faculty members who had been denied\ntenure with a one-year terminal contract, and Ricks received one of those contracts on June 26,\n1974. Id. at 253–54. The board informed Ricks on September 12, 1974, that it had denied his\ngrievance, so Ricks left the college when his contract expired on June 30, 1975.\n\n Ricks turned to federal court for relief, filing his employment discrimination claim on\nSeptember 9, 1977. Id. at 254. Up against a statute of limitations defense, Ricks argued that the\nstatute of limitations period commenced on June 30, 1975, when his contract with the college\nended. The Court rejected that argument, noting that the “termination of employment at\nDelaware State is a delayed, but inevitable, consequence of the denial of tenure.” Id. at 257–58.\n\f No. 18-3825 Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., et al. Page 14\n\n\nAccording to the Court, the limitations period began when the college communicated to Ricks its\nfinal, official decision to deny him tenure. Id. at 259. That happened when the college offered\nRicks a one-year terminal contract on June 26, 1974, by which point “the tenure committee had\ntwice recommended that Ricks not receive tenure; the Faculty Senate had voted to support the\ntenure committee’s recommendation; and the Board of Trustees formally had voted to deny\nRicks tenure.” Ricks, 499 U.S. at 262. In short, the college “had established its official\nposition—and made that position apparent to Ricks.” Id.\n\n Defendants contend that CAPP’s first decision to dismiss Endres commenced the statute\nof limitations, calling CAPP’s October 22 letter an “unequivocal” signal that Endres’s “time at\nNEOMED had come to an end.” (Appellee Br. at 24.) According to Defendants, Endres “must\nhave known” that the first CAPP decision “constituted a rejection of his disability-based\nassertions,” thus placing him on notice of his impending dismissal and triggering the limitations\nperiod. (Id.) But for that argument to hold any weight, we would have to ignore the existence of\nNEOMED’s appeals procedure. To be sure, NEOMED students are not entitled to an appeal as a\nmatter of course. Only if a student sets forth “significant and compelling new information that\nwas not available for presentation to the CAPP [ ] Committee, or evidence of a defect or\nirregularity in the CAPP [ ] Committee proceeding” will the ERC consider the appeal. (R. 25,\nMot. to Dismiss Appx. at PageID #690.) But Endres alleged precisely that—both that Emerick\npresented evidence, including the Thewissen Analysis, that he never had a chance to review\nbefore the first CAPP hearing (a procedural defect) and that his statistical analysis undermined\nthe accuracy of the Thewissen Analysis (significant and compelling new information that he\ncould have not presented until learning that the Thewissen Analysis existed). Far from\n“establish[ing] its official position—and ma[king] that position apparent to [Endres],” the ERC\nremanded the matter to CAPP, giving Endres a second chance to defend himself against\nallegations of misconduct. Ricks, 499 U.S. at 262. NEOMED did not reach a final decision—\nand communicate that decision to Endres—until it informed him on November 19 that the\nsecond CAPP panel voted to dismiss him, at which point Endres had exhausted the appeals\nprocess.\n\f No. 18-3825 Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., et al. Page 15\n\n\n Citing Ricks, Defendants also contend that NEOMED’s appeals process is analogous to a\ncollateral attack on CAPP’s decision, in which case Endres’s appeal would not have tolled the\nstatute of limitations. In Ricks, the E.E.O.C. filed an amicus brief, arguing that the statute of\nlimitations did not start until the college notified Ricks that it denied the grievance he filed after\nthe board of trustees voted to deny him tenure. Id. at 260. The Court rejected that argument,\ndrawing a critical distinction between collateral and direct review of a hiring decision. Although\na meritorious grievance may well change the result of an adverse hiring decision, a grievance is a\n“remedy for a prior decision, not an opportunity to influence that decision before it is made.” Id.\nat 261 (emphasis in original). Thus, a pending grievance or “some other method of collateral\nreview of an employment decision, does not toll the running of the limitations period.” Id.\n(citing Elec. Workers v. Robbins & Myers, Inc., 429 U.S. 229 (1976)). But Ricks also suggests\nthat the statute of limitations will not begin until the institution conveys its final decision to the\nplaintiff. There, the Court did not select February 1973—when the college’s tenure committee\nfirst recommended denying Ricks tenure—as the accrual date for Ricks’s claim. Not until the\ntenure committee reevaluated that decision one year later, the faculty senate approved that\ndecision, the board of trustees voted to deny Ricks tenure, and the college extended Ricks a one-\nyear terminal contract did Ricks’s claim accrue.1\n\n Although Defendants are correct that a collateral challenge to a final decision will not toll\nthe statute of limitations, their argument misses the mark because Endres’s appeal was not\ncollateral. A collateral challenge necessarily implies the existence of a final decision, but\nNEOMED’s own procedures tell us that the appeals process postpones the finality of a CAPP\ndecision. For one, the student has four working days to appeal an adverse CAPP decision to the\nERC. Failure to file an appeal within that timeline amounts to a “waiver of the right to appeal,\nand the decision becomes final.” (R. 25, Mot. to Dismiss Appx. at PageID #691.) That of course\nimplies that CAPP’s decision does not become final until—at the earliest—four working days\n\n\n 1In a footnote, the Court hinted that the accrual date may have occurred in March 1974, when the college’s\nboard of trustees voted to deny Ricks tenure, even though the district court held that Ricks’s claim accrued when the\ncollege extended him a one-year terminal contract in June 1974. Ricks, 449 U.S. at 262 n.17. Ricks filed his\ngrievance against the college after the board’s vote—but before the college offered the contract. In any event, the\nCourt concluded that even if the claim accrued in June 1974, Ricks’s claim was still untimely, noting that “[w]e\ncannot say that [the district court’s] decision was erroneous.” Id. at 262.\n\f No. 18-3825 Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., et al. Page 16\n\n\nafter its issuance. Second, NEOMED’s procedures explain that if the ERC refuses to grant the\nstudent’s appeal, the CAPP decision becomes final. Again, that implies that the CAPP decision\nis not final while an appeal request is pending before the ERC or after the ERC grants the appeal\nand remands the matter to CAPP for reconsideration, as it did here. And when the ERC remands\nthe matter for reconsideration, it effectively gives the accused student another shot at proving his\ninnocence. That is, the student gets another “opportunity to influence [CAPP’s] decision before\nit is made.” Ricks, 449 U.S. at 261 (emphasis in original).\n\n Defendants’ arguments fare no better under this court’s precedents. Defendants draw our\nattention to Janikowski v. Bendix Corp., in which we held that the plaintiff’s repeated requests\nfor relief from an adverse decision did not toll the statute of limitations period for his\nemployment discrimination claim. 823 F.2d 945, 948 (6th Cir. 1987). We find that comparison\ninapt. In Janikowski, the plaintiff’s employer announced a workforce reduction plan and\ninformed the plaintiff on September 4, 1980, that his position would end on September 30, 1981.\nId. at 946. Following up in November 1980, the plaintiff’s employer sent him a memo,\nreminding him that his position would no longer exist on September 30, 1981, and warning him\nthat if he did not find a different position within the company, his employment with the company\nwould also end. Id. The employer gave the plaintiff time off to interview, but as September\n1981 approached, the plaintiff had still not found employment, either within the company or\nelsewhere. Id. So the plaintiff negotiated to postpone his termination, and the employer agreed\nto retain him on a month-to-month basis—but ultimately terminated him on November 30, 1981.\nId.\n\n We agreed with the district court that the three-year statute of limitations barred the\nplaintiff’s suit, which he filed more than three years after his claim accrued. We found that the\naccrual date was September 4, 1980, when the plaintiff received “notice of termination, not when\nhis employment actually cease[d].” Id. True, the employer accommodated the plaintiff, even\nafter the September 30, 1981, deadline had passed, but there was never any question that the\nemployer would terminate the plaintiff’s position. Although the plaintiff sought more time to\n“avoid the consequences of the termination,” he knew on September 4, 1980, that his position\nwould not exist in about a year. Accordingly, we repeated the Supreme Court’s remark that in a\n\f No. 18-3825 Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., et al. Page 17\n\n\nstatute of limitations analysis, “the proper focus is on the time of the discriminatory act, not the\npoint at which the consequences of the act become painful.” Id. at 947 (quoting Chardon v.\nFernandez, 454 U.S. 6, 8 (1981)) (emphasis in original).\n\n Under Janikowski, Endres could not argue (nor does he) that his claim accrued when\nNEOMED made him clear out his dorm room and leave campus, even if the consequences of\nNEOMED’s decision were most painful then. Rather, our statute of limitations analysis focuses\non the alleged wrong giving rise to the claim—here, NEOMED’s dismissal decision. Though it\nwas always a foregone conclusion that the employer in Janikowski would terminate the\nemployee’s position, Endres’s fate remained uncertain until the second CAPP panel voted to\ndismiss him. Only then—by which point he had exhausted the appeals process—was there no\ndoubt that Endres would have to leave NEOMED.\n\n As a last resort, Defendants argue it makes no difference that NEOMED provides an\nappeals process because federal law controls when a claim accrues and the NEOMED handbook,\nof course, is not federal law. Thus, Defendants claim that NEOMED’s procedures do not inform\nour analysis. In support of that claim, Defendants cite Haeberle v. University of Louisville, in\nwhich the plaintiff argued that because the University of Louisville is a “creature of the state of\nKentucky, it is therefore subject to the interpretations of the Kentucky Supreme Court and the\nKentucky legislature with respect to the finality of state entity decisions.” 90 F. App’x 895, 900\n(6th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). We rejected that view, explaining that federal\nlaw governs when the limitations period begins. Haeberle, however, is inapposite. Although the\nplaintiff in Haeberle asked this court to apply Kentucky law—not federal law—to determine\nwhen the statute of limitations commences, Endres makes no such request. Indeed, Endres does\nnot challenge our principle that the statute of limitations starts “when the plaintiff knows or has\nreason to know of the injury which is the basis of his action.” Sevier, 742 F.2d at 273. That\nprinciple—one of federal law—does not keep us from considering how NEOMED’s policies\nmay have informed Endres about his injury. That is not to say that the policies themselves have\nindependent legal significance or that we are substituting the policies in place of our law.\nRather, the policies help us determine when Endres knew that his time at NEOMED had ended.\n\f No. 18-3825 Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., et al. Page 18\n\n\nThey reveal that until CAPP’s decision became final, Endres did not know for certain that he had\nno future at NEOMED.\n\n For these reasons, we conclude that the statute of limitations did not start until November\n19, 2015, when Endres learned that the second CAPP panel issued a final, non-appealable\ndecision recommending his dismissal. Having filed his complaint within two years of that date,\nEndres has satisfied the statute of limitations.\n\n III.\n\n Because Endres’s suit is timely, his claim under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act may\ngo forward. But Endres also brings a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Sandra\nEmerick violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights by depriving him of his liberty and property\ninterests in continued enrollment at NEOMED without procedural due process.2 Emerick, a state\nofficial named in her official and individual capacity, argued below that she is entitled to\nqualified immunity on Endres’s § 1983 claim. Although the district court held that Endres’s\nentire suit was time-barred, it also held in the alternative that Emerick is entitled to qualified\nimmunity. Endres appeals that decision, which we review de novo. O’Brien v. City of Grand\nRapids, 23 F.3d 990, 998 (6th Cir. 1994).\n\n In any qualified immunity analysis, we must answer two questions: (1) was there a\nconstitutional violation; and (2) if so, was the right clearly established when the violation\noccurred? Everson v. Leis, 556 F.3d 484, 494 (6th Cir. 2009). We consider each question in\nturn.\n\n A.\n\n At the outset, Endres must show a constitutionally protected life, liberty, or property\ninterest to prevail on his procedural due process claim. Endres alleges both a property and\nliberty interest in his continued enrollment at NEOMED, and our case law supports—at the very\n\n 2Endres sued NEOMED president Jay Gershen and NEOMED’s board of trustees in their official\ncapacities and Emerick in her official and individual capacity. As the district court noted, state defendants acting in\ntheir official capacities are not “persons” under § 1983 with respect to claims for monetary damages. See, e.g.,\nGean v. Hattaway, 330 F.3d 758, 766 (6th Cir. 2003). Thus, Endres cannot seek money damages under § 1983 from\nGershen or NEOMED’s board of trustees.\n\f No. 18-3825 Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., et al. Page 19\n\n\nleast—his alleged property interest. In Doe v. University of Cincinnati, we explained that a\nuniversity’s decision to suspend the student for two years “clearly implicates a protected\nproperty interest” in the student’s continued enrollment at the university. 872 F.3d 393, 399 (6th\nCir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted). If a two-year suspension is sufficient, then surely\npermanent dismissal is sufficient, too—and Emerick does not argue otherwise. Indeed, we have\nrepeatedly held that a state-university student facing a significant disciplinary decision, such as\nexpulsion, is entitled to “minimum due process protections.” Id.; Flaim v. Med. Coll. of Ohio,\n418 F.3d 629, 633 (6th Cir. 2005).\n\n So how much process is enough? To be sure, universities are not courts, and an accused\nstudent cannot expect the same procedural safeguards as a criminal defendant. Flaim, 418 F.3d\nat 635 n.1. Still, our cases tell us there must be some process; how much depends on the basis of\nthe dismissal. The Supreme Court has recognized a critical distinction between dismissals for\ndisciplinary misconduct and dismissals for academic underperformance. Compare Goss v.\nLopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975), with Bd. of Curators of Univ. of Mo. v. Horowitz, 435 U.S. 78\n(1978). When a school imposes a serious sanction like dismissal to address a student’s\ndisciplinary misconduct, the student is entitled to more robust process, including a hearing to\n“present his side of the story.” Goss, 419 U.S. at 581. In Goss, one of the named plaintiffs, a\npublic high school student, allegedly participated in a lunchroom melee that destroyed some\nschool property, leaving high school administrators to resolve a binary, factual question: did the\nstudent engage in that misconduct? Id. at 569 n.4. The administrators answered in the\naffirmative and suspended the student without conducting a hearing, which, according to the\nCourt, violated the student’s procedural due process rights. The Court held that when a student\naccused of misconduct faces “total exclusion from the educational process for more than a trivial\nperiod,” he is entitled to an “opportunity to present his side of the story.” Id. at 576, 581. Even\nif the evidence looks stacked against the student, “things are not always as they seem to be.” Id.\nat 584. Thus, hearings “provide a meaningful hedge against erroneous action” by, at the very\nleast, allowing the student to alert administrators to factual disputes and breaks in causal chains.\nId. at 583.\n\f No. 18-3825 Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., et al. Page 20\n\n\n Academic inquiries, not always so cut-and-dry, are a different matter. In Horowitz, the\nCourt held that a medical school did not violate a student’s due process rights when it dismissed\nher without a hearing because the basis for that dismissal was academic. 435 U.S. at 89–90. In\nthat case, the medical school faculty reported concerns with the student’s clinical performance,\nnot to mention that the student’s attendance at clinical sessions was “erratic” and that the student\n“lacked a critical concern for personal hygiene.” Id. at 81. The medical school did not\nsummarily dismiss the student upon hearing these complaints but instead allowed her to spend\ntime with seven physicians, who would evaluate her performance and recommend whether she\nshould graduate on time. Id. Of those seven, two recommended that the medical school dismiss\nthe student immediately; three recommended that the school postpone her graduation. Id. The\nmedical school ultimately dismissed the student, id. at 82, so she sued, alleging that the medical\nschool violated her due process rights. Id. at 91.\n\n The Court, however, found no constitutional violation. Unlike the factual question in\nGoss—i.e., did the student engage in misconduct—the question that the medical school\nadministrators had to resolve in Horowitz was far from objective. As the Court explained,\nmeasuring a student’s academic performance “by its nature [is] more subjective and evaluative\nthan the typical factual questions presented in the average disciplinary decision” and often\nrequires “an expert evaluation of cumulative information.” Id. at 90. It is also less contentious.\nAlthough a student with poor grades may face the same consequences (e.g., dismissal) as the\nstudent accused of disciplinary misconduct, the educational process itself “is not by nature\nadversar[ial]” and therefore not as “readily adapted to the procedural tools of judicial or\nadministrative decisionmaking.” Id. Finally, in an academic context, the decision-makers are\nnot drawn by lot to find facts, like we ask laymen to do as members of a jury. Rather, they\nexercise their “historic judgment” as educators to evaluate the student, and their decision is\nentitled to substantial deference. Id.\n\n In the end, the Court declined to “formalize the academic dismissal process by requiring\na hearing.” Id. So long as the university’s evaluation and ultimate decision is “careful and\ndeliberate,” the university meets the Due Process Clause’s requirements. Id. at 85. The upshot\nfor students facing dismissal on academic grounds is that “the due process afforded is minimal.”\n\f No. 18-3825 Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., et al. Page 21\n\n\nYoder v. Univ. of Louisville, 526 F. App’x 537, 549 (6th Cir. 2013) (citing Horowitz, 435 U.S. at\n85; Ku v. Tennessee, 322 F.3d 431, 436 (6th Cir. 2003)). The university must provide the\nstudent with notice of his unsatisfactory academic performance and deliver a “careful and\ndeliberate” decision on the student’s fate. Ku, 322 F.3d at 436 (citing Horowitz, 435 U.S. at 85–\n86). But the university need not provide a hearing.\n\n Whether Endres can show a constitutional violation turns on the basis for his dismissal.\nEmerick claims that the dismissal was for academic reasons, meaning that NEOMED did not\neven need to provide Endres with a hearing. Indeed, Emerick contends that Endres “received at\nleast as much process as was required for an academic dismissal.” (Appellee Br. at 32.) Endres,\nby contrast, alleges that allegations of cheating fall squarely on the disciplinary side of the\ndisciplinary-academic divide, triggering more robust procedures under the Due Process Clause.\n\n As Emerick acknowledges, the boundary between disciplinary misconduct and\nunsatisfactory performance can be hazy, but she offers two signs of when a dismissal rests on\nacademic grounds: (1) the student’s conduct relates to the student’s prospects for success in his\nchosen field; and (2) the university labels the student’s conduct as “academic” in its standing\nprocedures. We consider each in turn.\n\n Emerick is correct that grades, by themselves, do not dictate a student’s prospects for\nsuccess in his chosen field and that the university may consider more than just grades to assess a\nstudent’s academic standing. Following Horowitz, this court has endorsed a broad view of what\nconstitutes academic conduct. In Al-Dabagh v. Case Western Reserve University, we did not\nsecond-guess the medical school’s decision to treat a student’s lack of professionalism as an\nacademic matter. 777 F.3d 355, 357 (6th Cir. 2015). Although he performed well academically,\nthe student arrived habitually late to important meetings, displayed a poor bedside manner\naround patients, and harassed two female students at a school dance. Id. at 357–58. That\nconduct prompted the medical school to contemplate dismissing the student, although the school\nultimately settled on some lesser sanctions. Id. at 358. But the shoe finally dropped after a\nNorth Carolina court convicted the student for drunk driving, at which point the medical school\n\f No. 18-3825 Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., et al. Page 22\n\n\nconvened a committee and refused to certify him for graduation. 3 Id. The student sued, and\nalthough he did not allege any due process deprivation, we said that his “dismissal on\nprofessionalism grounds amounts to a deference-receiving academic judgment.” Id. at 359.\nNoting that professionalism “has been a part of the doctor’s role since at least ancient Greece,”\nwe explained that academic evaluations “may permissibly extend beyond raw grades and other\nobjective criteria.” Id. at 360 (internal alterations, quotation marks, and citations omitted).\n\n Medical schools have no interest in credentialing students with dim prospects in the\nmedical profession, be that because of low aptitude, poor hygiene, or drunkenness. And to the\nextent that the medical profession demands certain traits in physicians, medical schools have\ngood reason to ensure that their students possess those traits. Even so, it cannot be the case that\nbecause the alleged misconduct somehow relates to a professional trait, the medical school need\nonly treat the matter as academic and provide the student with minimal process. If that were so,\nthe medical school could reasonably construe all types of misconduct as a sign of the student’s\nlack-of-professionalism and thus avoid providing the student with the heighted procedures that\nthe Due Process Clause may demand. To give an example, a medical school could treat\nallegations of physical assault as academic, given that violent medical students might be likely to\ndisobey the commandment that as physicians, they first do no harm. By treating those\nallegations as academic rather than disciplinary, the university could dismiss the accused student\nwithout providing him the opportunity to contest facts or present evidence of his innocence, even\nthough this is exactly the type of situation that Goss says warrants a hearing. Such a broad\nconception of academic conduct would swallow all forms of conduct, sweeping Goss into\noblivion and obviating the need to ever hold a disciplinary hearing. For these reasons, the\nrelationship between the conduct and the student’s future professional success cannot be what\ndistinguishes academic and disciplinary conduct.\n\n Emerick points to a second sign that the conduct falls on the academic side of the\ndisciplinary-academic divide: the label that the medical school affixes to the alleged misconduct.\n\n\n 3After the student sued, the district court ordered the medical school to grant his diploma. Al-Dabagh,\n777 F.3d at 358–59. The medical school did so—but then appealed to this court, and we reversed the district court’s\norder. Id. at 361.\n\f No. 18-3825 Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., et al. Page 23\n\n\nAccording to Emerick, the student handbook defines cheating as a form of academic misconduct,\nwhich supports the inference that the basis for Endres’s dismissal was academic. Endres,\nhowever, correctly identifies two problems with that inference—one specific to NEOMED’s\npolices, the other more universal. First, NEOMED’s student handbook does not state that\ncheating is necessarily academic. The student handbook categorizes cheating as a form of\n“academic misconduct,” which itself is a type of “student misconduct.” (R. 25, Mot. to Dismiss\nAppx. at PageID #618.) But NEOMED administrators have discretion over how to adjudicate\nallegations of student misconduct. As the student handbook explains, NEOMED’s chief officer\nof student affairs—here, Emerick—must consult with other administrators and decide whether\nthe allegations are “best resolved through the formal disciplinary process . . . or by way of a\nreferral to Committee on Academic and Professional Progress (CAPP) or some other mechanism\nsuch as counseling or mediation.” (Id. at PageID #613.) That is, NEOMED—acting through\nEmerick—gets to decide whether allegations of cheating merit a disciplinary hearing or some\nother type of adjudication with less rigorous procedures. Nothing in the student handbook,\nhowever, suggests that cheating necessarily falls on the academic side of the disciplinary-\nacademic divide.\n\n The second problem with Emerick’s argument is more general. Whether the university\ndescribes conduct as academic or disciplinary does not dictate what process the Constitution\ndemands. As a default, it is the Constitution, not a university handbook, that establishes what\nprocess is due: the Constitution sets “the floor or lowest level of procedures acceptable.” Flaim,\n418 F.3d at 636; see also Heyne v. Metro. Nashville Pub. Schs., 655 F.3d 566, 569 (6th Cir.\n2011). Of course, parties may agree by contract to waive their constitutional rights, such as\nwhen a student agrees to warrantless searches of his dormitory room as a condition of living in a\nuniversity building. See, e.g., Medlock v. Trs. of Indiana Univ., 738 F.3d 867, 872 (7th Cir.\n2013). Such contracts, however, require “clear and unmistakable language” for us to infer that\none party has agreed to waive his constitutional rights—language not present in NEOMED’s\nstudent handbook. Morrison v. Warren, 375 F.3d 468, 474 (6th Cir. 2004).\n\n There is a more straightforward way to tell when the university’s decision is disciplinary\nor academic. A decision is disciplinary when the university engages in first-level factfinding to\n\f No. 18-3825 Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., et al. Page 24\n\n\nresolve a disputed, objective question about the student’s conduct—and the outcome of that\ninquiry could lead to the student’s dismissal or a long suspension. Our method of distinguishing\nacademic from disciplinary decisions is not something of our own creation. Rather, it tracks the\ndistinction that the Supreme Court has drawn through Goss and Horowitz—and that courts have\nfollowed. See, e.g., Fenje v. Feld, 398 F.3d 620, 625 (7th Cir. 2005) (describing disciplinary\ndismissals as “being more objective in nature and not dependent upon the analytical expertise of\nprofessional academicians”); Pugel v. Bd. of Tr. of Univ. of Ill., 378 F.3d 659, 663 (7th Cir.\n2004) (“Courts addressing graduate student dismissals on charges of academic dishonesty\ntraditionally have relied upon Goss.”).\n\n We underscore the critical difference between engaging in first-level factfinding and\ndrawing subjective conclusions from established facts. Al-Dabagh draws out this distinction. In\nthat case, the university refused to certify the student for graduation and effectively dismissed\nhim for lack of professionalism—an academic decision—when it learned of his North Carolina\nconviction for drunk driving. Al-Dabagh, 777 F.3d at 358–59. Although drunk driving might\nseem like inherently disciplinary conduct, the university was not adjudicating whether the\nstudent had, in fact, driven while intoxicated. Rather, the university had to decide, given the\ncourt’s decision, whether the student possessed the necessary traits to succeed in the medical\nprofession. That is a purely subjective inquiry, analogous to the university’s decision in\nHorowitz, that does not warrant a hearing under the Due Process Clause.\n\n The same goes when the university evaluates a student’s academic performance. It is\ntrue that this type of evaluation “also involves [questions] of objectively determinable fact—e.g.,\nwhether the student gave certain answers on an examination.” Horowitz, 435 U.S. at 95 n.5\n(Powell, J., concurring). But the purpose of the inquiry is not to answer an objective question\nabout the student’s conduct. Rather, the university’s “critical decision requires a subjective,\nexpert evaluation as to whether [the student’s] performance satisfies some predetermined\nstandard of academic competence,” which itself “is set by a similarly expert judgment.” Id. This\ncontrasts with a disciplinary inquiry, which “requires a factual determination as to whether the\nconduct took place or not” and thus warrants more rigorous protections under the Due Process\nClause. Id.\n\f No. 18-3825 Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., et al. Page 25\n\n\n What does this all mean for Endres? Emerick referred the cheating allegations to CAPP,\nwhich then resolved a disputed, objective question: whether Endres cheated on the September\n28 test. In answering that question, CAPP engaged in first-level factfinding and ultimately\ndismissed Endres, no doubt a serious sanction. The basis for Endres’s dismissal was\ndisciplinary, calling for more rigorous procedures under the Due Process Clause.\n\n The next question is whether the process Endres received was sufficient. When a\nuniversity student faces a serious sanction like dismissal over allegations of disciplinary\nmisconduct, he is entitled to a “fundamentally fair hearing.” Flaim, 418 F.3d at 635 n.1 (citation\nomitted). Endres received a hearing. But his allegations, which we must take as true at this\nstage, reveal that hearing was far from fair. For one, the student has a “right to be present for all\nsignificant portions of the hearing,” provided the hearing is live. Flaim, 418 F.3d at 635. And\neven when the hearing is not live, the university must “provide the accused with the opportunity\nto ‘respond, explain, and defend.’” Id. (quoting Gorman v. Univ. of R.I., 837 F.2d 7, 13 (1st Cir.\n1988)). Endres, however, alleges he was not allowed in the room while Emerick presented her\ncase to the CAPP panels. That alone establishes a due process violation, but Endres’s allegations\ndo not end there.\n\n Doe also says that the university must provide the student with “an explanation of the\nevidence” against him, but Endres’s allegations show that NEOMED repeatedly failed on this\nfront. 872 F.3d at 399–400. According to Endres, Emerick presented a statistical analysis to the\nfirst CAPP panel showing that the odds he and Student B would have six identical wrong\nanswers was 0.000036%. But that evidence—the Thewissen Analysis—was not present when\nEndres reviewed his student file before the hearing. Moreover, NEOMED did not allow Endres\nto listen in when Emerick presented the Thewissen Analysis and the rest of the case against him.\nWithout knowing that the Thewissen Analysis even existed, Endres could not have responded to\nwhat seemed like incontrovertible proof that he was a cheater.\n\n Even if the second CAPP hearing cured the defects of the first hearing, the second\nhearing was not flawless. Again, NEOMED excluded Endres from the room while Emerick\npresented her case. And once more, NEOMED failed to inform Endres of the key evidence\nagainst him. After the second CAPP panel dismissed him, Endres reviewed his student file and\n\f No. 18-3825 Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., et al. Page 26\n\n\ndiscovered a memo Emerick had drafted, which summarized her conversations with two of his\nphysicians. Endres not only alleges that Emerick discussed the memo as she presented her case\nto the second CAPP committee—but also that its content was false. Both physicians provided\nsworn affidavits in which they disputed Emerick’s account of their conversations, but those\naffidavits were of no use once the second CAPP panel voted to dismiss Endres, marking the end\nof the appeals process. Without knowledge of the memo’s existence, Endres could not “present\nhis side of the story.” Doe, 872 F.3d at 400 (citation omitted).\n\n B.\n\n Endres has alleged more than enough to establish a due process violation, but that does\nnot end the matter. Because Emerick has claimed qualified immunity, Endres must also show\nthat the constitutional rights Emerick violated were clearly established when the violation\noccurred. See DiLuzio v. Vill. of Yorkville, 796 F.3d 604, 608–09 (6th Cir. 2015). “For a right to\nbe clearly established, the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable officer\nwould understand that what he is doing violates that right.” McGlone v. Bell, 681 F.3d 718, 735\n(6th Cir. 2012).\n\n Emerick alleges that the law defining Endres’s due process rights was not clearly\nestablished, and on this front, she is correct. To be sure, the Supreme Court’s decisions in Goss\nand Horowitz make clear that a student facing a serious sanction for disciplinary misconduct is\nentitled to a fair hearing, but neither those cases nor our own decisions have articulated a bright-\nline rule to distinguish academic from disciplinary matters. Moreover, clearly established law\n“must be ‘particularized’ to the facts of the case,” yet no case from the Supreme Court or this\ncourt has held that cheating is a disciplinary matter warranting more robust procedures under the\nDue Process Clause. White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548, 552 (2017) (per curiam) (quoting Anderson\nv. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987)). And because no precedent clearly established that\nEndres was even entitled to a hearing, it follows that his right to be present at the hearing and to\nhear the evidence against him was not clearly established, either. We therefore hold that\nEmerick is entitled to qualified immunity.\n\f No. 18-3825 Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., et al. Page 27\n\n\n We note, however, that qualified immunity “‘only immunizes defendants from monetary\ndamages’—not injunctive or declaratory relief.” Kanuszewski v. Mich. Dep’t of Health and\nHuman Servs., 927 F.3d 396, 417–18 (6th Cir. 2019) (quoting Williams v. Com. of Ky., 24 F.3d\n1526, 1541 (6th Cir. 1994)); see also Ward v. Polite, 667 F.3d 727, 742 (6th Cir. 2012). Thus,\nour ruling shields Emerick from monetary damages. But the qualified immunity doctrine does\nnot preclude Endres from continuing to pursue the injunctive and declaratory relief that he has\nalso requested in his § 1983 claim.\n\n IV.\n\n We REVERSE the district court’s dismissal of Endres’s complaint and AFFIRM the\ndistrict court’s alternative holding that Emerick is immune from monetary damages on Endres’s\n§ 1983 claim.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: J. Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-08-30\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0222p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n J. ENDRES, ┐\\n Plaintiff-Appellant, │\\n │\\n │\\n v. │\\n > No. 18-3825\\n │\\n NORTHEAST OHIO MEDICAL UNIVERSITY; NORTHEAST │\\n OHIO MEDICAL UNIVERSITY BOARD OF TRUSTEES; │\\n SANDRA EMERICK; JAY A. GERSHEN, │\\n Defendants-Appellees. │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Northern District of Ohio at Akron.\\n No. 5:17-cv-02408—Sara E. Lioi, District Judge.\\n\\n Argued: May 2, 2019\\n\\n Decided and Filed: August 30, 2019\\n\\n Before: MERRITT, KETHLEDGE, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nARGUED: John S. Marshall, MARSHALL AND FORMAN LLC, Columbus, Ohio, for\\nAppellant. Todd R. Marti, OFFICE OF THE OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbus, Ohio,\\nfor Appellees. ON BRIEF: John S. Marshall, MARSHALL AND FORMAN LLC, Columbus,\\nOhio, for Appellant. Todd R. Marti, Anthony J. Farris, OFFICE OF THE OHIO ATTORNEY\\nGENERAL, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellees.\\n\\f No. 18-3825 Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., et al. Page 2\\n\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judge. Northeast Ohio Medical University (“NEOMED”)\\ndismissed Julian Endres, a medical student, for cheating on a test. Endres denies cheating, but\\nhis guilt or innocence is not relevant to this appeal. Instead, this appeal presents two questions.\\nThe first concerns when Endres should have brought the claims that he brings here. And the\\nsecond concerns what process the school should have afforded him before dismissing him. After\\nhis dismissal, Endres sued NEOMED, its president and board of trustees, and a NEOMED\\nadministrator, Sandra Emerick, alleging violations of his right to procedural due process, along\\nwith the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. But before\\nconsidering the substance of those claims, the district court dismissed Endres’s complaint as\\nuntimely. The district court also held that even if Endres’s due process claim were timely,\\nEmerick is entitled to qualified immunity. Endres appeals that decision.\\n\\n We hold that Endres’s claims are timely and REVERSE the district court’s dismissal of\\nhis complaint. Endres has also alleged facts which, taken as true, establish several violations of\\nhis procedural due process rights. But because the contours of those rights were not clearly\\nestablished, we AFFIRM the district court’s grant of qualified immunity to Emerick, which\\nimmunizes her from damages though not from injunctive relief.\\n\\n I.\\n\\n Julian Endres has Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”). Since his\\ndiagnosis at age six, Endres has taken medication to treat that condition, beginning with Ritalin,\\nand he seemed to manage well. Endres graduated from high school as valedictorian and enrolled\\nin the accelerated B.S./M.D. program at the Northeast Ohio Medical University (“NEOMED”), a\\npublic university. After completing his undergraduate studies in two years, graduating magna\\ncum laude, Endres began medical school.\\n\\n When Endres started his second semester of medical school, he experienced a new side\\neffect from Ritalin. Endres alleges that around March 2015, he felt that the medicine was over-\\n\\f No. 18-3825 Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., et al. Page 3\\n\\n\\nsedating him and making him lethargic—so he stopped taking it altogether. By that time, Endres\\nhad passed fourteen of the fifteen required classes to complete his first year of medical school,\\nbut he still had one class left. No longer on Ritalin, Endres failed that class. So NEOMED made\\nEndres repeat the entire first-year curriculum during the following academic year, including the\\nfourteen classes he had passed.\\n\\n Before he returned to NEOMED that fall, Endres consulted with his physicians to find a\\nmedicine that would treat his ADHD without inducing the unwanted side-effects, and in August\\n2015, Endres switched to Strattera. Endres alleges that Strattera helped him concentrate without\\nmaking him feel drowsy but that it was not a magic bullet. Unlike Ritalin, Strattera did not\\nsuppress his fidgeting. Even so, he stuck with the new medicine.\\n\\n The Test. Back at NEOMED, Endres re-enrolled in the mandatory first-year curriculum,\\nincluding Human Development and Structure (“HDS”), taught by Professor Hans Thewissen. It\\nmade no difference that Endres passed HDS the prior year because he had to retake all first-year\\nclasses.\\n\\n Tests at NEOMED are a serious undertaking. Students take their tests on NEOMED’s\\nlaptops, using a special software program that allows them to zoom in and out and manipulate\\nthe images on the screen. Endres alleges that NEOMED’s laptops are set at the lowest\\nbrightness level and that students cannot make the screen any brighter. And while students are\\ntaking tests, NEOMED officials are watching—both with their own eyes and with a camera that\\nrecords students taking examinations. Students knew that NEOMED was filming them. Indeed,\\nEndres had worked part-time as an assistant, helping NEOMED professors set up the camera to\\nrecord class lectures.\\n\\n This case involves the 25-question test Endres took on September 28, 2015, as part of the\\nHDS course. Endres sat directly in front of the camera. And as it turned out, the camera focused\\non Endres throughout much of the test. Footage from the test reveals Endres fidgeting and\\nrepeatedly glancing toward his right—and in the direction of his seatmate’s (“Student B”) laptop.\\nEndres concedes that his eye movements and sideways glances might look suspicious to\\nsomeone watching the video with no context, but he offers an alternate explanation. According\\n\\f No. 18-3825 Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., et al. Page 4\\n\\n\\nto Endres, Student B repeatedly used the software’s zoom feature, which created brief flashes of\\nlight that caused Endres to look repeatedly to the source. In any event, Endres contends that it\\nwas physically impossible to see any legible content on the laptop to his right, both because he\\nwas sitting about five feet away, and because all laptops were set to the lowest brightness level.\\n\\n When the test ended, one of the proctors completed an irregularity report, noting that\\nEndres appeared to look repeatedly at the laptop to his right—but that perhaps he was just\\nnervous. That report made its way to Sandra Emerick, NEOMED’s chief officer of student\\naffairs. And so NEOMED’s investigation of Endres began.\\n\\n The Investigation and Referral to CAPP. Endres alleges that Emerick began a three-day\\ninvestigation into his conduct during the September 28 test. Emerick reviewed the video\\nrecording of the test and obtained Endres’s and Student B’s answer keys, which revealed that\\n84% of their answers were identical. Student B and Endres answered the same six questions\\nincorrectly, the same fifteen questions correctly, and the same four questions differently. In the\\nend, Endres scored a 72 while Student B scored a 64. The class mean was a 56.5. Emerick then\\nsent her findings to several university administrators and professors, including Thewissen,\\nwriting that the video footage “clearly” showed Endres “viewing peer’s computer screen\\nrepeatedly during the exam,” and noting in boldface that “84% of the tests were identical.”\\n(R. 23, First Am. Compl. at ¶ 47.)\\n\\n NEOMED’s student handbook outlines various procedures to address allegations of\\nstudent misconduct, including cheating, and gives NEOMED administrators discretion over\\nwhich procedures to use. Under the handbook, the chief officer of student affairs works with\\nseveral administrators to decide where to refer misconduct allegations. The administrators have\\nthree basic options—they may refer the allegations to: (1) a formal disciplinary body; (2) the\\nCommittee on Academic and Professional Progress (“CAPP”); or (3) a less formal process, such\\nas counseling or mediation. When administrators refer a matter to the formal disciplinary body,\\nthe student has a right to an adversarial hearing—where he may learn the evidence against him,\\ncross-examine witnesses, and present evidence in his defense.\\n\\f No. 18-3825 Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., et al. Page 5\\n\\n\\n Emerick referred the matter to CAPP, which reviews issues related to academic\\nperformance and professionalism. CAPP accepted the referral and later sent Endres a letter\\nnotifying him that he had to attend a hearing on October 21, where a panel would discuss the\\n“professionalism concern,” as well as Endres’s “overall educational performance.” (Id. at ¶ 80.)\\nThe letter instructed Endres to review his student file and to complete a student interview form\\nwith Emerick, which Emerick would then add to his student file and present to CAPP at the\\nhearing.\\n\\n Emerick Meets with Endres. After referring the matter to CAPP, Emerick called Endres\\nfor a brief meeting on October 7, marking the first time that he learned of the allegations against\\nhim. Endres alleges that he was “completely stunned” to learn that he stood accused of cheating.\\n(Id. at ¶ 72.) And when Emerick showed Endres footage of the test, Endres alleges he was\\n“shell-shocked to see how ‘bad’ his fidgeting and side-glances caused by distractions looked.”\\n(Id.) Endres informed Emerick that he had recently switched from Ritalin to Strattera, which did\\nnot suppress his fidgeting, so Emerick requested that Endres provide documentation from his\\ndoctor about the medication change. Less than a week later, Endres’s doctor, Dr. Caroline\\nRamos, sent Emerick a letter describing Endres’s ADHD, along with medical records\\ndocumenting Endres’s medication adjustment between April and August 2015. Ramos stated\\nthat she viewed the video recording and found that Endres’s behavior during the test mimicked\\nthe fidgeting that Endres had described at an April 2015 appointment. Ramos also suggested that\\nbecause Endres had recently started the Strattera, NEOMED should make certain\\naccommodations for him, especially so that no one would misinterpret his fidgeting as academic\\nmisconduct.\\n\\n After the initial meeting, Endres emailed Emerick about his case. Endres explained to\\nEmerick that the position of the laptops prevented a test-taker from viewing any meaningful\\ninformation on a nearby laptop. So Endres requested that CAPP recreate the testing conditions\\nthrough a “field test,” which would prove that it was impossible to cheat. Endres alleges that\\nEmerick never responded to that request. In the same email, however, Endres requested\\ninformation and evidence on his case, and Emerick responded to that request, explaining that his\\n\\f No. 18-3825 Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., et al. Page 6\\n\\n\\nofficial student file contained all information from the investigation that she would present to\\nCAPP.\\n\\n On October 14, Endres visited the student enrollment office to review his file. Endres\\nalleges that he found a folder containing all of his records since he applied to NEOMED as a\\nhigh-school student—and in no particular order. According to Endres, his file contained only\\ntwo records related to the misconduct allegation: (1) an email from Emerick, referring the matter\\nto CAPP; and (2) Endres’s and Student B’s answer keys to the September 28 test. Endres alleges\\nthat the proctor’s irregularity report was missing from his file, prompting him to email Emerick\\nand request to view the report. Endres returned to the student enrollment office the next day to\\nview the report, which was then in the file.\\n\\n Endres met once more with Emerick before the CAPP hearing. He alleges that Emerick\\ndid not discuss any information about his case or describe to him the evidence that she would\\npresent before CAPP. Endres then submitted his student interview form, a personal statement, a\\nstatement from Dr. Ramos, and his medical records, which CAPP could review during the\\nhearing.\\n\\n The First CAPP Hearing. CAPP conducted the first hearing on October 21. CAPP\\nprocedures allow the accused student to speak to his unsatisfactory performance and respond to\\nquestions from committee members but do not allow the accused student in the room while the\\ncommittee reviews documents about his case. So the meeting began with Emerick in the room,\\npresenting the case against Endres, while Endres waited down the hall. After Emerick finished\\nher presentation, the panel allowed Endres into the room, and he presented his case. Endres\\nexplained to the panel that it would be physically impossible to commit the alleged misconduct\\nand described the field test he conducted with three randomly selected NEOMED students.\\nAccording to Endres, all three students agreed that it was impossible to view any information on\\nthe laptop immediately to their right—even if they turned their heads and stared directly at the\\nlaptop. Endres also explained his sideways glances, telling the panel about his recent medication\\nchange and that Strattera did not suppress his fidgeting or movements. And Endres noted that\\nthe flashes of light from Student B’s computer repeatedly distracted him during the test. As\\nEndres explained, NEOMED’s laptop software allows students to zoom in on pictures and\\n\\f No. 18-3825 Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., et al. Page 7\\n\\n\\ndiagrams, causing a color change on the laptop screen—and for Endres, a flash appearing in the\\ncorner of his eyes. This prompted him to turn repeatedly to his right, whenever his seatmate\\nadjusted the content on the laptop. Finally, Endres discussed the exam answers themselves.\\nAlthough Endres did not have the answer keys for the entire class, he explained that the\\npercentage of identical answers that two students might share simply turns on their scores and\\nthe number of correctly or incorrectly answered questions. According to Endres, the normal\\ndistribution range of similarity for two students who scored a 64 and a 72 (Student B’s score and\\nEndres’s score, respectively) would be between 64% and 92%. Thus, Endres explained that the\\nfact that he and Student B answered 84% of the questions identically was unremarkable.\\n\\n After Endres completed his 30-minute presentation, the panel questioned him about why\\nhe did not request an accommodation before taking the test. Endres explained that before\\nSeptember 28, he had not taken any test while on Strattera and that he had never needed any\\naccommodations while on Ritalin. Endres alleges that Emerick remained in the room throughout\\nhis presentation and the panel’s questions. But according to Endres, the panel did not inform\\nEndres about any part of Emerick’s presentation, nor did the panel ask Endres any questions\\nrelated to that presentation.\\n\\n Endres left the room, and the panel began its deliberations with Emerick still present.\\nEmerick called Endres the next day, telling him that the panel found him responsible for the\\nmisconduct. Endres later received an email informing him of the consequences of CAPP’s\\ndecision. He could: (1) withdraw within four days, in which case his transcript would state that\\nhe had withdrawn; (2) accept the decision for dismissal, in which case his transcript would state\\nthat he had been dismissed; or (3) request an appeal of CAPP’s decision if there is “significant\\nand compelling new information” unavailable at the hearing or if he had evidence that there was\\na defect or irregularity in the proceedings. (Id. at ¶ 118.)\\n\\n Endres and His Parents Meet with Emerick. Two days after the hearing, Endres and his\\nparents met with Emerick. Emerick discussed the evidence that she presented during the hearing\\nand that the committee relied on in reaching its decision. One key piece of evidence was a\\nstatistical analysis from Professor Thewissen (“Thewissen Analysis”), which claimed that there\\nwas a 0.000036% chance that two students would have six identical wrong answers. Endres\\n\\f No. 18-3825 Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., et al. Page 8\\n\\n\\nalleges that this was the first time he learned about the Thewissen Analysis and that the analysis\\nwas not present when he reviewed his student file before the hearing. The other key piece of\\nevidence was Emerick’s verbal interpretation of the video recording from the test. Emerick\\nrelayed to Endres and his parents that the panel did not believe that his ADHD caused his eye\\nmovements and that he should have used his right hand to shield his eyes from the occasional\\nflashes of light.\\n\\n Endres Files Appeal, Requests Additional Evidence. NEOMED’s student handbook\\nprovides students with a limited right of appeal. The Executive Review Committee (“ERC”)\\nconsiders appeals—but only if the student presents “significant and compelling new information\\nthat was not available for presentation [to CAPP], or evidence of a defect or irregularity in the\\nCAPP [ ] Committee proceeding.” (R. 25, Mot. to Dismiss Appx. at PageID #691.) The student\\nmust file an appeal (NEOMED calls it a “Petition for Executive Review”) within four working\\ndays after learning of CAPP’s decision, and if he fails to file an appeal in that time, CAPP’s\\n“decision becomes final.” (Id.) Moreover, CAPP’s decision becomes final if the ERC declines\\nto accept the appeal. (Id.)\\n\\n After the meeting with Emerick, Endres requested additional evidence related to the\\nexam, which he planned to introduce on appeal. In particular, Endres sought: (1) the student\\nperformance report for the entire HDS class, containing each individual score and answer key;\\n(2) the Thewissen Analysis; and (3) timestamp reports from the laptop software, showing\\nprecisely when Student B and Endres answered each exam question. Although NEOMED first\\ndeclined to provide Endres with this evidence, it ultimately turned over those records on the eve\\nof Endres’s deadline to appeal.\\n\\n Hours later, Endres filed his appeal with the ERC and submitted new evidence, including:\\n(1) hundreds of test comparisons based on the actual data from the HDS class, which Endres\\nalleges undermined the Thewissen Analysis and the fact that his answers and Student B’s\\nanswers were 84% similar; (2) signatures from HDS students, who agreed that it was impossible\\nto view content on a nearby laptop; and (3) a psychological evaluation from Dr. Andrew\\nTrauben, a psychiatrist specializing in ADHD, who reviewed the video of the test and met with\\nEndres to evaluate his symptoms. Endres tried to submit additional evidence after filing his\\n\\f No. 18-3825 Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., et al. Page 9\\n\\n\\nappeal, including his own statistical analysis that allegedly debunked the Thewissen Analysis.\\nHours before the ERC hearing, however, Emerick emailed Endres to notify him that the ERC\\nwould not accept his report and that he could not distribute copies of that report to ERC\\nmembers.\\n\\n The ERC Hearing. The ERC conducted a hearing on November 2, using the same\\nprocedures as CAPP. This meant that Emerick presented her case while Endres waited outside\\nthe room until it was his turn to speak. Endres then entered the room, and although he could not\\ndistribute copies of his statistical analysis, he described that analysis—as well as flaws in\\nEmerick’s statistical comparison and the Thewissen Analysis. As Endres explained, Emerick’s\\nstatistical comparison—that he and Student B had answered 84% of the questions identically—\\nproved no misconduct. Of the 160 HDS students who took the exam, more than 80 students had\\n85% similar answers with at least one other student in the class. And more than two-thirds of the\\nclass had six or more identical wrong answers with at least one other student in the class.\\nAccording to Endres, that data refuted the Thewissen Analysis’s claim that the probability two\\nstudents would mistakenly answer the same six questions was 0.000036%.\\n\\n The next day, Endres received a letter from the ERC granting him a rehearing before\\nCAPP but restricting the information he could present. While Endres could introduce Trauben’s\\nreport, he could not submit any evidence contesting the Thewissen Analysis.\\n\\n The Second CAPP Hearing. Knowing that CAPP would not consider his statistical\\nanalysis, Endres sent test data to Thewissen and asked him to defend his findings given the full\\nclass data. Thewissen declined to review the data, and NEOMED’s legal counsel later informed\\nEndres that Thewissen was not open to making any statement about potential errors in his\\nanalysis. That said, NEOMED’s legal counsel told Endres that the CAPP committee had agreed\\nto allow Trauben to speak at the hearing—and that the committee members would have some\\nquestions for the physician.\\n\\n Several hours before the second CAPP hearing on November 18, NEOMED’s legal\\ncounsel issued a limiting instruction to the CAPP:\\n\\f No. 18-3825 Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., et al. Page 10\\n\\n\\n Please be advised that during our deliberations today, the Committee should\\n accord no weight to any statement made or documents presented during the initial\\n hearing in [Endres’s] CAPP case that recounted any statistical analysis performed\\n on his test answers. Consistent with disregarding any statements made or\\n documents presented about any statistical analysis, the committee is to likewise\\n accord no weight to any documents set forth by [Endres] throughout his appeal\\n that include any statistical analysis of his test answers. While these documents\\n were included in the record received by the Committee in advance of today’s\\n meeting, they should not be considered during our review of this matter today, or\\n in making a decision.\\n\\n(R. 23, First Am. Compl. at ¶ 157.) This meant that Endres could not discuss the Thewissen\\nAnalysis or distribute any material about that analysis at the hearing. Nor could Endres\\nintroduce recorded video from a field test, which he alleges proved that it was physically\\nimpossible to view content on a neighboring laptop.\\n\\n The second CAPP hearing proceeded much like the first hearing. Emerick presented her\\ncase, after which Endres entered the room to present his version of events. Endres alleges that\\nCAPP only allowed him to speak generally and that he could not present, distribute, or discuss\\nany material that would have exonerated him, such as a video recording from a field test he\\nconducted. According to Endres, the recording would have proven that it was physically\\nimpossible for any student to view content on a neighboring laptop. CAPP then called Trauben,\\nwho reiterated that Endres’s behavior during the test was a manifestation of his ADHD. Endres\\nalleges that the committee asked Trauben some questions about his credentials and qualifications\\nto write the report he submitted on behalf of Endres. The next day—November 19, 2015—\\nEndres learned that the committee had voted to dismiss him.\\n\\n The Emerick Memo. Several days after the second CAPP hearing, Endres obtained a hard\\ncopy of his student file, which he alleges contained information he had not reviewed before that\\nhearing. Endres reviewed the file on November 11, when it was supposed to include all evidence\\nand information that Emerick would present at the second CAPP hearing. But when he reviewed\\nthe file after that hearing, it contained new evidence: a memo from Emerick (“Emerick Memo”),\\ndated November 2.\\n\\f No. 18-3825 Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., et al. Page 11\\n\\n\\n Endres alleges that the Emerick Memo inaccurately summarizes Emerick’s conversations\\nwith two of his physicians, Ramos and Trauben. Indeed, Ramos and Trauben submitted\\naffidavits stating that the Emerick Memo did not faithfully memorialize their conversations with\\nEmerick and that its content was either false, misleading, or taken out of context. For example,\\nthe Emerick Memo states that Trauben “understood that he needed a quick turn around on\\ndocumentation in order to submit a CAPP appeal letter.” (Id. at ¶ 171.) But Trauben explained\\nin his affidavit that “[t]hat sentence appears to suggest that my analysis of Mr. [Endres], or the\\nopinion I rendered, was compromised because of the timeframe in which it was completed. That\\nis not so, and it is not something I ever conveyed to [Defendant Emerick.]” (Id.) Trauben\\nconcluded that Emerick “did not faithfully memorialize the contents of our telephone call.” (Id.\\nat ¶ 173.)\\n\\n Ramos recounted similar inaccuracies and misrepresentations in the Emerick Memo. The\\nEmerick Memo states that “Dr. Ramos only met with [J. Endres] three times in total” and that\\nRamos did not meet with Endres before submitting her October 13th letter documenting her\\ntreatment of Endres. (Id. at ¶ 174.) Ramos objects to both statements, noting that she met with\\nEndres three times within a four-month period in 2015, including an August meeting about a\\nmonth before Endres took the HDS test. Ramos explained that she met with Endres more often\\nthan she does with most of her patients. The Emerick Memo also alleges that Ramos “simply\\nprepared the letter based upon the materials [Plaintiff’s] parents sent her via jump drive\\nregarding [Plaintiff’s] case.” (Id. at ¶ 176.) Ramos described that statement as “false,” noting\\nthat it “suggests that the views I expressed in my letter were somehow biased by information I\\nreceived from Mr. [Endres’s] parents.” (Id.) Finally, Endres accuses Emerick of falsely\\ncharacterizing his feelings toward his physicians and his medical care. Emerick allegedly told\\nRamos that Endres blamed her for the side effects he experienced on Strattera. Yet Endres\\nalleges that he never told Emerick that Ramos was responsible and maintains that he—not his\\nphysicians—wanted to try a different medicine. Endres hypothesizes that Emerick\\nmischaracterized his feelings to elicit a response from Ramos that would damage his credibility\\nbefore CAPP.\\n\\f No. 18-3825 Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., et al. Page 12\\n\\n\\n Endres filed his two-count complaint in federal court on November 16, 2017, naming\\nNEOMED, NEOMED president Jay Gershen, NEOMED’s board of trustees, and Emerick as\\ndefendants (“Defendants”). Endres’s first count, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleges that Gershen,\\nEmerick, and the board of trustees violated his constitutional rights by depriving him of his\\nproperty and liberty interests in enrollment at NEOMED without procedural due process. His\\nsecond count, under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Rehabilitation Act of\\n1973, alleges that NEOMED effectively concluded that his ADHD precluded him from\\ncompleting his medical studies—even though NEOMED could have made reasonable\\naccommodations to ensure that his ADHD-related symptoms would not create the appearance of\\nacademic misconduct.\\n\\n Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on statute of limitation grounds, contending\\nthat Endres’s two-year window to file his complaint started in October 2015, when CAPP first\\nconcluded that Endres should be dismissed. Emerick also claimed qualified immunity. The\\ndistrict court ruled for the Defendants, holding that the two-year statute of limitations barred\\nEndres’s suit and that in any case, Emerick is entitled to qualified immunity. Endres appeals that\\ndecision.\\n\\n II.\\n\\n We review de novo the district court’s dismissal of a complaint on statute of limitations\\ngrounds. Banks v. City of Whitehall, 344 F.3d 550, 553 (6th Cir. 2003). Neither § 1983, the\\nADA, nor the Rehabilitation Act provides a statute of limitations, so courts must borrow one\\nfrom the most analogous state cause of action. McCormick v. Miami Univ., 693 F.3d 654, 663\\n(6th Cir. 2012). This court has applied Ohio’s two-year statute of limitations governing personal\\ninjury actions to Ohio cases arising under § 1983, the ADA, and the Rehabilitation Act. Banks,\\n344 F.3d at 553 (applying two-year period to § 1983 suit); McCormick, 693 F.3d at 663\\n(applying two-year period to ADA suit); Bishop v. Children’s Ctr. for Dev. Enrichment,\\n618 F.3d 533, 536 (6th Cir. 2010) (applying two-year period to Rehabilitation Act suit). This\\nappeal, however, is not about the length of the limitations period, which both parties agree is two\\nyears. Rather, it turns on when the limitations period starts to run, and federal law holds the\\nanswer to that question. See Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 388 (2007). Under federal law, the\\n\\f No. 18-3825 Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., et al. Page 13\\n\\n\\nstatute of limitations period begins “when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury\\nwhich is the basis of his action.” Sevier v. Turner, 742 F.2d 262, 273 (6th Cir. 1984) (citations\\nomitted). Therein lies the heart of this dispute.\\n\\n Endres and Defendants agree that the injury triggering this suit is Endres’s dismissal from\\nNEOMED. But the disputed question is when Endres learned that he had no future at\\nNEOMED. According to Endres, the limitations period began on November 19, 2015, when he\\nlearned the outcome of the second CAPP hearing. If Endres is correct, then his claim is timely\\nbecause he filed his complaint on November 16, 2017, within the two-year statute of limitations.\\nBut Defendants say the limitations period began on October 22, 2015, when Endres learned the\\noutcome of the first CAPP hearing, and if they are correct, Endres’s claim is time-barred.\\n\\n Both parties point us to Delaware State College v. Ricks, in which the Supreme Court\\nheld that a college professor’s employment discrimination claim was time-barred. 449 U.S. 250,\\n254 (1980). The case warrants close study. After the plaintiff, Ricks, had been teaching at\\nDelaware State College for about three years, the college’s tenure committee recommended in\\nFebruary 1973 that he not receive tenure. Id. at 252. That committee agreed to reconsider its\\ndecision in a year, and it did so in February 1974, adhering to its original recommendation. Id.\\nNext, the faculty senate voted to approve the committee’s recommendation, and in March 1974,\\nthe board of trustees voted to deny Ricks tenure. Id. Ricks then filed a grievance with the\\nboard’s educational policy committee, and in May 1974, that committee took the grievance\\nunder consideration. Id. Although the college denied him tenure, Ricks was not immediately\\njobless. The college had a policy of providing junior faculty members who had been denied\\ntenure with a one-year terminal contract, and Ricks received one of those contracts on June 26,\\n1974. Id. at 253–54. The board informed Ricks on September 12, 1974, that it had denied his\\ngrievance, so Ricks left the college when his contract expired on June 30, 1975.\\n\\n Ricks turned to federal court for relief, filing his employment discrimination claim on\\nSeptember 9, 1977. Id. at 254. Up against a statute of limitations defense, Ricks argued that the\\nstatute of limitations period commenced on June 30, 1975, when his contract with the college\\nended. The Court rejected that argument, noting that the “termination of employment at\\nDelaware State is a delayed, but inevitable, consequence of the denial of tenure.” Id. at 257–58.\\n\\f No. 18-3825 Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., et al. Page 14\\n\\n\\nAccording to the Court, the limitations period began when the college communicated to Ricks its\\nfinal, official decision to deny him tenure. Id. at 259. That happened when the college offered\\nRicks a one-year terminal contract on June 26, 1974, by which point “the tenure committee had\\ntwice recommended that Ricks not receive tenure; the Faculty Senate had voted to support the\\ntenure committee’s recommendation; and the Board of Trustees formally had voted to deny\\nRicks tenure.” Ricks, 499 U.S. at 262. In short, the college “had established its official\\nposition—and made that position apparent to Ricks.” Id.\\n\\n Defendants contend that CAPP’s first decision to dismiss Endres commenced the statute\\nof limitations, calling CAPP’s October 22 letter an “unequivocal” signal that Endres’s “time at\\nNEOMED had come to an end.” (Appellee Br. at 24.) According to Defendants, Endres “must\\nhave known” that the first CAPP decision “constituted a rejection of his disability-based\\nassertions,” thus placing him on notice of his impending dismissal and triggering the limitations\\nperiod. (Id.) But for that argument to hold any weight, we would have to ignore the existence of\\nNEOMED’s appeals procedure. To be sure, NEOMED students are not entitled to an appeal as a\\nmatter of course. Only if a student sets forth “significant and compelling new information that\\nwas not available for presentation to the CAPP [ ] Committee, or evidence of a defect or\\nirregularity in the CAPP [ ] Committee proceeding” will the ERC consider the appeal. (R. 25,\\nMot. to Dismiss Appx. at PageID #690.) But Endres alleged precisely that—both that Emerick\\npresented evidence, including the Thewissen Analysis, that he never had a chance to review\\nbefore the first CAPP hearing (a procedural defect) and that his statistical analysis undermined\\nthe accuracy of the Thewissen Analysis (significant and compelling new information that he\\ncould have not presented until learning that the Thewissen Analysis existed). Far from\\n“establish[ing] its official position—and ma[king] that position apparent to [Endres],” the ERC\\nremanded the matter to CAPP, giving Endres a second chance to defend himself against\\nallegations of misconduct. Ricks, 499 U.S. at 262. NEOMED did not reach a final decision—\\nand communicate that decision to Endres—until it informed him on November 19 that the\\nsecond CAPP panel voted to dismiss him, at which point Endres had exhausted the appeals\\nprocess.\\n\\f No. 18-3825 Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., et al. Page 15\\n\\n\\n Citing Ricks, Defendants also contend that NEOMED’s appeals process is analogous to a\\ncollateral attack on CAPP’s decision, in which case Endres’s appeal would not have tolled the\\nstatute of limitations. In Ricks, the E.E.O.C. filed an amicus brief, arguing that the statute of\\nlimitations did not start until the college notified Ricks that it denied the grievance he filed after\\nthe board of trustees voted to deny him tenure. Id. at 260. The Court rejected that argument,\\ndrawing a critical distinction between collateral and direct review of a hiring decision. Although\\na meritorious grievance may well change the result of an adverse hiring decision, a grievance is a\\n“remedy for a prior decision, not an opportunity to influence that decision before it is made.” Id.\\nat 261 (emphasis in original). Thus, a pending grievance or “some other method of collateral\\nreview of an employment decision, does not toll the running of the limitations period.” Id.\\n(citing Elec. Workers v. Robbins & Myers, Inc., 429 U.S. 229 (1976)). But Ricks also suggests\\nthat the statute of limitations will not begin until the institution conveys its final decision to the\\nplaintiff. There, the Court did not select February 1973—when the college’s tenure committee\\nfirst recommended denying Ricks tenure—as the accrual date for Ricks’s claim. Not until the\\ntenure committee reevaluated that decision one year later, the faculty senate approved that\\ndecision, the board of trustees voted to deny Ricks tenure, and the college extended Ricks a one-\\nyear terminal contract did Ricks’s claim accrue.1\\n\\n Although Defendants are correct that a collateral challenge to a final decision will not toll\\nthe statute of limitations, their argument misses the mark because Endres’s appeal was not\\ncollateral. A collateral challenge necessarily implies the existence of a final decision, but\\nNEOMED’s own procedures tell us that the appeals process postpones the finality of a CAPP\\ndecision. For one, the student has four working days to appeal an adverse CAPP decision to the\\nERC. Failure to file an appeal within that timeline amounts to a “waiver of the right to appeal,\\nand the decision becomes final.” (R. 25, Mot. to Dismiss Appx. at PageID #691.) That of course\\nimplies that CAPP’s decision does not become final until—at the earliest—four working days\\n\\n\\n 1In a footnote, the Court hinted that the accrual date may have occurred in March 1974, when the college’s\\nboard of trustees voted to deny Ricks tenure, even though the district court held that Ricks’s claim accrued when the\\ncollege extended him a one-year terminal contract in June 1974. Ricks, 449 U.S. at 262 n.17. Ricks filed his\\ngrievance against the college after the board’s vote—but before the college offered the contract. In any event, the\\nCourt concluded that even if the claim accrued in June 1974, Ricks’s claim was still untimely, noting that “[w]e\\ncannot say that [the district court’s] decision was erroneous.” Id. at 262.\\n\\f No. 18-3825 Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., et al. Page 16\\n\\n\\nafter its issuance. Second, NEOMED’s procedures explain that if the ERC refuses to grant the\\nstudent’s appeal, the CAPP decision becomes final. Again, that implies that the CAPP decision\\nis not final while an appeal request is pending before the ERC or after the ERC grants the appeal\\nand remands the matter to CAPP for reconsideration, as it did here. And when the ERC remands\\nthe matter for reconsideration, it effectively gives the accused student another shot at proving his\\ninnocence. That is, the student gets another “opportunity to influence [CAPP’s] decision before\\nit is made.” Ricks, 449 U.S. at 261 (emphasis in original).\\n\\n Defendants’ arguments fare no better under this court’s precedents. Defendants draw our\\nattention to Janikowski v. Bendix Corp., in which we held that the plaintiff’s repeated requests\\nfor relief from an adverse decision did not toll the statute of limitations period for his\\nemployment discrimination claim. 823 F.2d 945, 948 (6th Cir. 1987). We find that comparison\\ninapt. In Janikowski, the plaintiff’s employer announced a workforce reduction plan and\\ninformed the plaintiff on September 4, 1980, that his position would end on September 30, 1981.\\nId. at 946. Following up in November 1980, the plaintiff’s employer sent him a memo,\\nreminding him that his position would no longer exist on September 30, 1981, and warning him\\nthat if he did not find a different position within the company, his employment with the company\\nwould also end. Id. The employer gave the plaintiff time off to interview, but as September\\n1981 approached, the plaintiff had still not found employment, either within the company or\\nelsewhere. Id. So the plaintiff negotiated to postpone his termination, and the employer agreed\\nto retain him on a month-to-month basis—but ultimately terminated him on November 30, 1981.\\nId.\\n\\n We agreed with the district court that the three-year statute of limitations barred the\\nplaintiff’s suit, which he filed more than three years after his claim accrued. We found that the\\naccrual date was September 4, 1980, when the plaintiff received “notice of termination, not when\\nhis employment actually cease[d].” Id. True, the employer accommodated the plaintiff, even\\nafter the September 30, 1981, deadline had passed, but there was never any question that the\\nemployer would terminate the plaintiff’s position. Although the plaintiff sought more time to\\n“avoid the consequences of the termination,” he knew on September 4, 1980, that his position\\nwould not exist in about a year. Accordingly, we repeated the Supreme Court’s remark that in a\\n\\f No. 18-3825 Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., et al. Page 17\\n\\n\\nstatute of limitations analysis, “the proper focus is on the time of the discriminatory act, not the\\npoint at which the consequences of the act become painful.” Id. at 947 (quoting Chardon v.\\nFernandez, 454 U.S. 6, 8 (1981)) (emphasis in original).\\n\\n Under Janikowski, Endres could not argue (nor does he) that his claim accrued when\\nNEOMED made him clear out his dorm room and leave campus, even if the consequences of\\nNEOMED’s decision were most painful then. Rather, our statute of limitations analysis focuses\\non the alleged wrong giving rise to the claim—here, NEOMED’s dismissal decision. Though it\\nwas always a foregone conclusion that the employer in Janikowski would terminate the\\nemployee’s position, Endres’s fate remained uncertain until the second CAPP panel voted to\\ndismiss him. Only then—by which point he had exhausted the appeals process—was there no\\ndoubt that Endres would have to leave NEOMED.\\n\\n As a last resort, Defendants argue it makes no difference that NEOMED provides an\\nappeals process because federal law controls when a claim accrues and the NEOMED handbook,\\nof course, is not federal law. Thus, Defendants claim that NEOMED’s procedures do not inform\\nour analysis. In support of that claim, Defendants cite Haeberle v. University of Louisville, in\\nwhich the plaintiff argued that because the University of Louisville is a “creature of the state of\\nKentucky, it is therefore subject to the interpretations of the Kentucky Supreme Court and the\\nKentucky legislature with respect to the finality of state entity decisions.” 90 F. App’x 895, 900\\n(6th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). We rejected that view, explaining that federal\\nlaw governs when the limitations period begins. Haeberle, however, is inapposite. Although the\\nplaintiff in Haeberle asked this court to apply Kentucky law—not federal law—to determine\\nwhen the statute of limitations commences, Endres makes no such request. Indeed, Endres does\\nnot challenge our principle that the statute of limitations starts “when the plaintiff knows or has\\nreason to know of the injury which is the basis of his action.” Sevier, 742 F.2d at 273. That\\nprinciple—one of federal law—does not keep us from considering how NEOMED’s policies\\nmay have informed Endres about his injury. That is not to say that the policies themselves have\\nindependent legal significance or that we are substituting the policies in place of our law.\\nRather, the policies help us determine when Endres knew that his time at NEOMED had ended.\\n\\f No. 18-3825 Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., et al. Page 18\\n\\n\\nThey reveal that until CAPP’s decision became final, Endres did not know for certain that he had\\nno future at NEOMED.\\n\\n For these reasons, we conclude that the statute of limitations did not start until November\\n19, 2015, when Endres learned that the second CAPP panel issued a final, non-appealable\\ndecision recommending his dismissal. Having filed his complaint within two years of that date,\\nEndres has satisfied the statute of limitations.\\n\\n III.\\n\\n Because Endres’s suit is timely, his claim under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act may\\ngo forward. But Endres also brings a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Sandra\\nEmerick violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights by depriving him of his liberty and property\\ninterests in continued enrollment at NEOMED without procedural due process.2 Emerick, a state\\nofficial named in her official and individual capacity, argued below that she is entitled to\\nqualified immunity on Endres’s § 1983 claim. Although the district court held that Endres’s\\nentire suit was time-barred, it also held in the alternative that Emerick is entitled to qualified\\nimmunity. Endres appeals that decision, which we review de novo. O’Brien v. City of Grand\\nRapids, 23 F.3d 990, 998 (6th Cir. 1994).\\n\\n In any qualified immunity analysis, we must answer two questions: (1) was there a\\nconstitutional violation; and (2) if so, was the right clearly established when the violation\\noccurred? Everson v. Leis, 556 F.3d 484, 494 (6th Cir. 2009). We consider each question in\\nturn.\\n\\n A.\\n\\n At the outset, Endres must show a constitutionally protected life, liberty, or property\\ninterest to prevail on his procedural due process claim. Endres alleges both a property and\\nliberty interest in his continued enrollment at NEOMED, and our case law supports—at the very\\n\\n 2Endres sued NEOMED president Jay Gershen and NEOMED’s board of trustees in their official\\ncapacities and Emerick in her official and individual capacity. As the district court noted, state defendants acting in\\ntheir official capacities are not “persons” under § 1983 with respect to claims for monetary damages. See, e.g.,\\nGean v. Hattaway, 330 F.3d 758, 766 (6th Cir. 2003). Thus, Endres cannot seek money damages under § 1983 from\\nGershen or NEOMED’s board of trustees.\\n\\f No. 18-3825 Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., et al. Page 19\\n\\n\\nleast—his alleged property interest. In Doe v. University of Cincinnati, we explained that a\\nuniversity’s decision to suspend the student for two years “clearly implicates a protected\\nproperty interest” in the student’s continued enrollment at the university. 872 F.3d 393, 399 (6th\\nCir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted). If a two-year suspension is sufficient, then surely\\npermanent dismissal is sufficient, too—and Emerick does not argue otherwise. Indeed, we have\\nrepeatedly held that a state-university student facing a significant disciplinary decision, such as\\nexpulsion, is entitled to “minimum due process protections.” Id.; Flaim v. Med. Coll. of Ohio,\\n418 F.3d 629, 633 (6th Cir. 2005).\\n\\n So how much process is enough? To be sure, universities are not courts, and an accused\\nstudent cannot expect the same procedural safeguards as a criminal defendant. Flaim, 418 F.3d\\nat 635 n.1. Still, our cases tell us there must be some process; how much depends on the basis of\\nthe dismissal. The Supreme Court has recognized a critical distinction between dismissals for\\ndisciplinary misconduct and dismissals for academic underperformance. Compare Goss v.\\nLopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975), with Bd. of Curators of Univ. of Mo. v. Horowitz, 435 U.S. 78\\n(1978). When a school imposes a serious sanction like dismissal to address a student’s\\ndisciplinary misconduct, the student is entitled to more robust process, including a hearing to\\n“present his side of the story.” Goss, 419 U.S. at 581. In Goss, one of the named plaintiffs, a\\npublic high school student, allegedly participated in a lunchroom melee that destroyed some\\nschool property, leaving high school administrators to resolve a binary, factual question: did the\\nstudent engage in that misconduct? Id. at 569 n.4. The administrators answered in the\\naffirmative and suspended the student without conducting a hearing, which, according to the\\nCourt, violated the student’s procedural due process rights. The Court held that when a student\\naccused of misconduct faces “total exclusion from the educational process for more than a trivial\\nperiod,” he is entitled to an “opportunity to present his side of the story.” Id. at 576, 581. Even\\nif the evidence looks stacked against the student, “things are not always as they seem to be.” Id.\\nat 584. Thus, hearings “provide a meaningful hedge against erroneous action” by, at the very\\nleast, allowing the student to alert administrators to factual disputes and breaks in causal chains.\\nId. at 583.\\n\\f No. 18-3825 Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., et al. Page 20\\n\\n\\n Academic inquiries, not always so cut-and-dry, are a different matter. In Horowitz, the\\nCourt held that a medical school did not violate a student’s due process rights when it dismissed\\nher without a hearing because the basis for that dismissal was academic. 435 U.S. at 89–90. In\\nthat case, the medical school faculty reported concerns with the student’s clinical performance,\\nnot to mention that the student’s attendance at clinical sessions was “erratic” and that the student\\n“lacked a critical concern for personal hygiene.” Id. at 81. The medical school did not\\nsummarily dismiss the student upon hearing these complaints but instead allowed her to spend\\ntime with seven physicians, who would evaluate her performance and recommend whether she\\nshould graduate on time. Id. Of those seven, two recommended that the medical school dismiss\\nthe student immediately; three recommended that the school postpone her graduation. Id. The\\nmedical school ultimately dismissed the student, id. at 82, so she sued, alleging that the medical\\nschool violated her due process rights. Id. at 91.\\n\\n The Court, however, found no constitutional violation. Unlike the factual question in\\nGoss—i.e., did the student engage in misconduct—the question that the medical school\\nadministrators had to resolve in Horowitz was far from objective. As the Court explained,\\nmeasuring a student’s academic performance “by its nature [is] more subjective and evaluative\\nthan the typical factual questions presented in the average disciplinary decision” and often\\nrequires “an expert evaluation of cumulative information.” Id. at 90. It is also less contentious.\\nAlthough a student with poor grades may face the same consequences (e.g., dismissal) as the\\nstudent accused of disciplinary misconduct, the educational process itself “is not by nature\\nadversar[ial]” and therefore not as “readily adapted to the procedural tools of judicial or\\nadministrative decisionmaking.” Id. Finally, in an academic context, the decision-makers are\\nnot drawn by lot to find facts, like we ask laymen to do as members of a jury. Rather, they\\nexercise their “historic judgment” as educators to evaluate the student, and their decision is\\nentitled to substantial deference. Id.\\n\\n In the end, the Court declined to “formalize the academic dismissal process by requiring\\na hearing.” Id. So long as the university’s evaluation and ultimate decision is “careful and\\ndeliberate,” the university meets the Due Process Clause’s requirements. Id. at 85. The upshot\\nfor students facing dismissal on academic grounds is that “the due process afforded is minimal.”\\n\\f No. 18-3825 Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., et al. Page 21\\n\\n\\nYoder v. Univ. of Louisville, 526 F. App’x 537, 549 (6th Cir. 2013) (citing Horowitz, 435 U.S. at\\n85; Ku v. Tennessee, 322 F.3d 431, 436 (6th Cir. 2003)). The university must provide the\\nstudent with notice of his unsatisfactory academic performance and deliver a “careful and\\ndeliberate” decision on the student’s fate. Ku, 322 F.3d at 436 (citing Horowitz, 435 U.S. at 85–\\n86). But the university need not provide a hearing.\\n\\n Whether Endres can show a constitutional violation turns on the basis for his dismissal.\\nEmerick claims that the dismissal was for academic reasons, meaning that NEOMED did not\\neven need to provide Endres with a hearing. Indeed, Emerick contends that Endres “received at\\nleast as much process as was required for an academic dismissal.” (Appellee Br. at 32.) Endres,\\nby contrast, alleges that allegations of cheating fall squarely on the disciplinary side of the\\ndisciplinary-academic divide, triggering more robust procedures under the Due Process Clause.\\n\\n As Emerick acknowledges, the boundary between disciplinary misconduct and\\nunsatisfactory performance can be hazy, but she offers two signs of when a dismissal rests on\\nacademic grounds: (1) the student’s conduct relates to the student’s prospects for success in his\\nchosen field; and (2) the university labels the student’s conduct as “academic” in its standing\\nprocedures. We consider each in turn.\\n\\n Emerick is correct that grades, by themselves, do not dictate a student’s prospects for\\nsuccess in his chosen field and that the university may consider more than just grades to assess a\\nstudent’s academic standing. Following Horowitz, this court has endorsed a broad view of what\\nconstitutes academic conduct. In Al-Dabagh v. Case Western Reserve University, we did not\\nsecond-guess the medical school’s decision to treat a student’s lack of professionalism as an\\nacademic matter. 777 F.3d 355, 357 (6th Cir. 2015). Although he performed well academically,\\nthe student arrived habitually late to important meetings, displayed a poor bedside manner\\naround patients, and harassed two female students at a school dance. Id. at 357–58. That\\nconduct prompted the medical school to contemplate dismissing the student, although the school\\nultimately settled on some lesser sanctions. Id. at 358. But the shoe finally dropped after a\\nNorth Carolina court convicted the student for drunk driving, at which point the medical school\\n\\f No. 18-3825 Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., et al. Page 22\\n\\n\\nconvened a committee and refused to certify him for graduation. 3 Id. The student sued, and\\nalthough he did not allege any due process deprivation, we said that his “dismissal on\\nprofessionalism grounds amounts to a deference-receiving academic judgment.” Id. at 359.\\nNoting that professionalism “has been a part of the doctor’s role since at least ancient Greece,”\\nwe explained that academic evaluations “may permissibly extend beyond raw grades and other\\nobjective criteria.” Id. at 360 (internal alterations, quotation marks, and citations omitted).\\n\\n Medical schools have no interest in credentialing students with dim prospects in the\\nmedical profession, be that because of low aptitude, poor hygiene, or drunkenness. And to the\\nextent that the medical profession demands certain traits in physicians, medical schools have\\ngood reason to ensure that their students possess those traits. Even so, it cannot be the case that\\nbecause the alleged misconduct somehow relates to a professional trait, the medical school need\\nonly treat the matter as academic and provide the student with minimal process. If that were so,\\nthe medical school could reasonably construe all types of misconduct as a sign of the student’s\\nlack-of-professionalism and thus avoid providing the student with the heighted procedures that\\nthe Due Process Clause may demand. To give an example, a medical school could treat\\nallegations of physical assault as academic, given that violent medical students might be likely to\\ndisobey the commandment that as physicians, they first do no harm. By treating those\\nallegations as academic rather than disciplinary, the university could dismiss the accused student\\nwithout providing him the opportunity to contest facts or present evidence of his innocence, even\\nthough this is exactly the type of situation that Goss says warrants a hearing. Such a broad\\nconception of academic conduct would swallow all forms of conduct, sweeping Goss into\\noblivion and obviating the need to ever hold a disciplinary hearing. For these reasons, the\\nrelationship between the conduct and the student’s future professional success cannot be what\\ndistinguishes academic and disciplinary conduct.\\n\\n Emerick points to a second sign that the conduct falls on the academic side of the\\ndisciplinary-academic divide: the label that the medical school affixes to the alleged misconduct.\\n\\n\\n 3After the student sued, the district court ordered the medical school to grant his diploma. Al-Dabagh,\\n777 F.3d at 358–59. The medical school did so—but then appealed to this court, and we reversed the district court’s\\norder. Id. at 361.\\n\\f No. 18-3825 Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., et al. Page 23\\n\\n\\nAccording to Emerick, the student handbook defines cheating as a form of academic misconduct,\\nwhich supports the inference that the basis for Endres’s dismissal was academic. Endres,\\nhowever, correctly identifies two problems with that inference—one specific to NEOMED’s\\npolices, the other more universal. First, NEOMED’s student handbook does not state that\\ncheating is necessarily academic. The student handbook categorizes cheating as a form of\\n“academic misconduct,” which itself is a type of “student misconduct.” (R. 25, Mot. to Dismiss\\nAppx. at PageID #618.) But NEOMED administrators have discretion over how to adjudicate\\nallegations of student misconduct. As the student handbook explains, NEOMED’s chief officer\\nof student affairs—here, Emerick—must consult with other administrators and decide whether\\nthe allegations are “best resolved through the formal disciplinary process . . . or by way of a\\nreferral to Committee on Academic and Professional Progress (CAPP) or some other mechanism\\nsuch as counseling or mediation.” (Id. at PageID #613.) That is, NEOMED—acting through\\nEmerick—gets to decide whether allegations of cheating merit a disciplinary hearing or some\\nother type of adjudication with less rigorous procedures. Nothing in the student handbook,\\nhowever, suggests that cheating necessarily falls on the academic side of the disciplinary-\\nacademic divide.\\n\\n The second problem with Emerick’s argument is more general. Whether the university\\ndescribes conduct as academic or disciplinary does not dictate what process the Constitution\\ndemands. As a default, it is the Constitution, not a university handbook, that establishes what\\nprocess is due: the Constitution sets “the floor or lowest level of procedures acceptable.” Flaim,\\n418 F.3d at 636; see also Heyne v. Metro. Nashville Pub. Schs., 655 F.3d 566, 569 (6th Cir.\\n2011). Of course, parties may agree by contract to waive their constitutional rights, such as\\nwhen a student agrees to warrantless searches of his dormitory room as a condition of living in a\\nuniversity building. See, e.g., Medlock v. Trs. of Indiana Univ., 738 F.3d 867, 872 (7th Cir.\\n2013). Such contracts, however, require “clear and unmistakable language” for us to infer that\\none party has agreed to waive his constitutional rights—language not present in NEOMED’s\\nstudent handbook. Morrison v. Warren, 375 F.3d 468, 474 (6th Cir. 2004).\\n\\n There is a more straightforward way to tell when the university’s decision is disciplinary\\nor academic. A decision is disciplinary when the university engages in first-level factfinding to\\n\\f No. 18-3825 Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., et al. Page 24\\n\\n\\nresolve a disputed, objective question about the student’s conduct—and the outcome of that\\ninquiry could lead to the student’s dismissal or a long suspension. Our method of distinguishing\\nacademic from disciplinary decisions is not something of our own creation. Rather, it tracks the\\ndistinction that the Supreme Court has drawn through Goss and Horowitz—and that courts have\\nfollowed. See, e.g., Fenje v. Feld, 398 F.3d 620, 625 (7th Cir. 2005) (describing disciplinary\\ndismissals as “being more objective in nature and not dependent upon the analytical expertise of\\nprofessional academicians”); Pugel v. Bd. of Tr. of Univ. of Ill., 378 F.3d 659, 663 (7th Cir.\\n2004) (“Courts addressing graduate student dismissals on charges of academic dishonesty\\ntraditionally have relied upon Goss.”).\\n\\n We underscore the critical difference between engaging in first-level factfinding and\\ndrawing subjective conclusions from established facts. Al-Dabagh draws out this distinction. In\\nthat case, the university refused to certify the student for graduation and effectively dismissed\\nhim for lack of professionalism—an academic decision—when it learned of his North Carolina\\nconviction for drunk driving. Al-Dabagh, 777 F.3d at 358–59. Although drunk driving might\\nseem like inherently disciplinary conduct, the university was not adjudicating whether the\\nstudent had, in fact, driven while intoxicated. Rather, the university had to decide, given the\\ncourt’s decision, whether the student possessed the necessary traits to succeed in the medical\\nprofession. That is a purely subjective inquiry, analogous to the university’s decision in\\nHorowitz, that does not warrant a hearing under the Due Process Clause.\\n\\n The same goes when the university evaluates a student’s academic performance. It is\\ntrue that this type of evaluation “also involves [questions] of objectively determinable fact—e.g.,\\nwhether the student gave certain answers on an examination.” Horowitz, 435 U.S. at 95 n.5\\n(Powell, J., concurring). But the purpose of the inquiry is not to answer an objective question\\nabout the student’s conduct. Rather, the university’s “critical decision requires a subjective,\\nexpert evaluation as to whether [the student’s] performance satisfies some predetermined\\nstandard of academic competence,” which itself “is set by a similarly expert judgment.” Id. This\\ncontrasts with a disciplinary inquiry, which “requires a factual determination as to whether the\\nconduct took place or not” and thus warrants more rigorous protections under the Due Process\\nClause. Id.\\n\\f No. 18-3825 Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., et al. Page 25\\n\\n\\n What does this all mean for Endres? Emerick referred the cheating allegations to CAPP,\\nwhich then resolved a disputed, objective question: whether Endres cheated on the September\\n28 test. In answering that question, CAPP engaged in first-level factfinding and ultimately\\ndismissed Endres, no doubt a serious sanction. The basis for Endres’s dismissal was\\ndisciplinary, calling for more rigorous procedures under the Due Process Clause.\\n\\n The next question is whether the process Endres received was sufficient. When a\\nuniversity student faces a serious sanction like dismissal over allegations of disciplinary\\nmisconduct, he is entitled to a “fundamentally fair hearing.” Flaim, 418 F.3d at 635 n.1 (citation\\nomitted). Endres received a hearing. But his allegations, which we must take as true at this\\nstage, reveal that hearing was far from fair. For one, the student has a “right to be present for all\\nsignificant portions of the hearing,” provided the hearing is live. Flaim, 418 F.3d at 635. And\\neven when the hearing is not live, the university must “provide the accused with the opportunity\\nto ‘respond, explain, and defend.’” Id. (quoting Gorman v. Univ. of R.I., 837 F.2d 7, 13 (1st Cir.\\n1988)). Endres, however, alleges he was not allowed in the room while Emerick presented her\\ncase to the CAPP panels. That alone establishes a due process violation, but Endres’s allegations\\ndo not end there.\\n\\n Doe also says that the university must provide the student with “an explanation of the\\nevidence” against him, but Endres’s allegations show that NEOMED repeatedly failed on this\\nfront. 872 F.3d at 399–400. According to Endres, Emerick presented a statistical analysis to the\\nfirst CAPP panel showing that the odds he and Student B would have six identical wrong\\nanswers was 0.000036%. But that evidence—the Thewissen Analysis—was not present when\\nEndres reviewed his student file before the hearing. Moreover, NEOMED did not allow Endres\\nto listen in when Emerick presented the Thewissen Analysis and the rest of the case against him.\\nWithout knowing that the Thewissen Analysis even existed, Endres could not have responded to\\nwhat seemed like incontrovertible proof that he was a cheater.\\n\\n Even if the second CAPP hearing cured the defects of the first hearing, the second\\nhearing was not flawless. Again, NEOMED excluded Endres from the room while Emerick\\npresented her case. And once more, NEOMED failed to inform Endres of the key evidence\\nagainst him. After the second CAPP panel dismissed him, Endres reviewed his student file and\\n\\f No. 18-3825 Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., et al. Page 26\\n\\n\\ndiscovered a memo Emerick had drafted, which summarized her conversations with two of his\\nphysicians. Endres not only alleges that Emerick discussed the memo as she presented her case\\nto the second CAPP committee—but also that its content was false. Both physicians provided\\nsworn affidavits in which they disputed Emerick’s account of their conversations, but those\\naffidavits were of no use once the second CAPP panel voted to dismiss Endres, marking the end\\nof the appeals process. Without knowledge of the memo’s existence, Endres could not “present\\nhis side of the story.” Doe, 872 F.3d at 400 (citation omitted).\\n\\n B.\\n\\n Endres has alleged more than enough to establish a due process violation, but that does\\nnot end the matter. Because Emerick has claimed qualified immunity, Endres must also show\\nthat the constitutional rights Emerick violated were clearly established when the violation\\noccurred. See DiLuzio v. Vill. of Yorkville, 796 F.3d 604, 608–09 (6th Cir. 2015). “For a right to\\nbe clearly established, the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable officer\\nwould understand that what he is doing violates that right.” McGlone v. Bell, 681 F.3d 718, 735\\n(6th Cir. 2012).\\n\\n Emerick alleges that the law defining Endres’s due process rights was not clearly\\nestablished, and on this front, she is correct. To be sure, the Supreme Court’s decisions in Goss\\nand Horowitz make clear that a student facing a serious sanction for disciplinary misconduct is\\nentitled to a fair hearing, but neither those cases nor our own decisions have articulated a bright-\\nline rule to distinguish academic from disciplinary matters. Moreover, clearly established law\\n“must be ‘particularized’ to the facts of the case,” yet no case from the Supreme Court or this\\ncourt has held that cheating is a disciplinary matter warranting more robust procedures under the\\nDue Process Clause. White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548, 552 (2017) (per curiam) (quoting Anderson\\nv. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987)). And because no precedent clearly established that\\nEndres was even entitled to a hearing, it follows that his right to be present at the hearing and to\\nhear the evidence against him was not clearly established, either. We therefore hold that\\nEmerick is entitled to qualified immunity.\\n\\f No. 18-3825 Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ., et al. Page 27\\n\\n\\n We note, however, that qualified immunity “‘only immunizes defendants from monetary\\ndamages’—not injunctive or declaratory relief.” Kanuszewski v. Mich. Dep’t of Health and\\nHuman Servs., 927 F.3d 396, 417–18 (6th Cir. 2019) (quoting Williams v. Com. of Ky., 24 F.3d\\n1526, 1541 (6th Cir. 1994)); see also Ward v. Polite, 667 F.3d 727, 742 (6th Cir. 2012). Thus,\\nour ruling shields Emerick from monetary damages. But the qualified immunity doctrine does\\nnot preclude Endres from continuing to pursue the injunctive and declaratory relief that he has\\nalso requested in his § 1983 claim.\\n\\n IV.\\n\\n We REVERSE the district court’s dismissal of Endres’s complaint and AFFIRM the\\ndistrict court’s alternative holding that Emerick is immune from monetary damages on Endres’s\\n§ 1983 claim.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3765,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4644969,"string":"4,644,969"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"Brian KNUTSON, Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. VILLAGE OF LAKEMOOR, Defendant-Appellee."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Brian Knutson v. Village of Lakemoor"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-08-01"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-3729"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Manion, Sykes, Brennan\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"Daniel Anthony Manion\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-3729\\nBRIAN KNUTSON, et al.,\\n Plaintiffs-Appellants,\\n v.\\n\\nVILLAGE OF LAKEMOOR,\\n Defendant-Appellee.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 1:18-cv-01804 — Marvin E. Aspen, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED APRIL 17, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 1, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before MANION, SYKES, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\\n MANION, Circuit Judge. This class action suit challenges the\\nred light camera program of the Village of Lakemoor, Illinois.\\nThe plaintiffs received violation notices from Lakemoor that\\nthey claim are invalid because the notices lack a proper mu-\\nnicipal code citation. They also claim Lakemoor denied them\\ndue process by limiting the defenses that can be asserted be-\\nfore a hearing officer to contest a violation. The district court\\ndismissed the case for failure to state a claim. We affirm.\\n\\f2 No. 18-3729\\n\\n I. Background\\n Describing the plaintiffs’ claims requires reading several\\nprovisions of Lakemoor’s Municipal Code of Ordinances (the\\n“Code”) together. First, Chapter 1 of the Code outlines the\\nCode’s numbering system: “Each section number of this code\\nshall consist of two component parts separated by a period,\\nthe figure before the period referring to the chapter number\\nand the figure after the period referring to the section within\\nthe chapter.” Lakemoor Mun. Code § 1.01(C).\\n Chapter 41-1/21 of the Code covers traffic violations. It in-\\ncorporates by reference the Illinois Vehicle Code (IVC), and\\nstates “[t]he section numbers used in the [IVC] shall be iden-\\ntical to those section numbers in the Lakemoor Vehicle Code.\\nTherefore, an ordinance violation shall be cited as ‘Chapter\\n41-1/2,’ followed by the corresponding IVC section number.”\\nId. § 41-1/2.01.\\n In 2012, Lakemoor enacted an ordinance titled\\n“AUTOMATED TRAFFIC LAW ENFORCEMENT\\nPROGRAM,” and codified it as Section 14 of Chapter 41-1/2.\\nId. § 41-1/2.14. Section 14 authorizes a system of red light cam-\\neras located at certain intersections to detect and record red\\nlight violations. Id. It states “[i]t shall be a violation of this sec-\\ntion for anyone to operate a vehicle in disregard of a traffic\\ncontrol device or to turn right on a red light where it is posted\\n‘No Turn on Red,’” id. § 41-1/2.14(B), but it also incorporates\\nby reference the IVC’s prohibition of the same conduct, id.\\n§ 41-1/2.14(C)(1), (C)(4) (citing IVC § 11-306).\\n\\n\\n\\n 1\\n This chapter is referred to as Chapter 41-1/2 because it falls between\\nChapters 41 and 42.\\n\\fNo. 18-3729 3\\n\\n When a red light camera captures a vehicle committing a\\nred light violation, Section 14 requires a written violation no-\\ntice to be issued to the registered owner of the vehicle. Id. § 41-\\n1/2.14(C)(4). Section 14 lists the information that the notice\\n“shall include,” such as the name and address of the regis-\\ntered owner of the vehicle, the location, date, and time of the\\nviolation, and, importantly for this appeal, “[t]he violation\\ncharged, with specific reference to that section of the Village\\nof Lakemoor Municipal Code of Ordinances allegedly vio-\\nlated.” Id. § 41-1/2.14(C)(4)(c). The violation notice constitutes\\nprima facie evidence of a violation, which can be rebutted by\\nseveral enumerated defenses. Id. § 41-1/2.14(C)(6). A recipient\\nof a violation notice may request adjudication before a hear-\\ning officer, where he may present only the defenses listed in\\nSection 14(C)(6). The list of defenses does not include chal-\\nlenges to the violation notice’s compliance with Section 14’s\\nrequirements. Id.\\n In its entirety, Section 14 comprises approximately 42 sub-\\nsections and sub-subsections and takes up roughly four full\\npages. At the end of Section 14 is the following parenthetical:\\n“(Ord. 12-O-03, passed 1-26-2012),” referencing the ordinance\\nnumber as it was passed and its date of passage. Lakemoor’s\\nonline ordinance compilation includes a cross-reference chart\\nthat links Ord. No. 12-O-03 to Section 14.2\\n\\n\\n 2 See Village of Lakemoor, Illinois Code of Ordinances, AM. LEGAL PUBL’G\\nCORP., http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Illinois/lakemoor_il/vil\\nlageoflakemoorillinoiscodeofordinance?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$\\nvid=amlegal:lakemoor_il (last visited Aug. 1, 2019). From this page, the\\nentire municipal code is accessible through a navigation panel on the left\\nside of the screen, arranged by chapters and sections. At the very bottom\\n\\f4 No. 18-3729\\n\\n Each plaintiff received at least one such notice of violation.\\nNext to the label “Code Violation and Description,” the no-\\ntices include simply the notation “12-O-03.” However, the no-\\ntices also include photographs of the violation occurrence and\\nstate these photographs depict “a violation of a red light sig-\\nnal and/or law pertaining to ‘Right Turn on Red.’” The notices\\nfurther provide a complete list of defenses and grounds for\\ncontesting the violation as well as instructions for contesting\\nthe violation by mail or in person.\\n All but one of the named plaintiffs chose to pay the $100\\nfine for each violation,3 and none requested a hearing. They\\nthen filed suit in federal court, seeking to certify three classes:\\n(1) all individuals who received a violation notice from Lake-\\nmoor, (2) those who paid the fine, and (3) those who have not\\npaid the fine. The plaintiffs alleged Lakemoor deprived them\\nof due process under color of state law and sought declaratory\\n\\n\\nof this navigation panel is a link labelled “REFERENCES TO\\nORDINANCES” within the expandable folder “PARALLEL\\nREFERENCES.” That page includes a chart of all ordinance numbers ar-\\nranged in numerical order. For each ordinance number, the chart lists the\\ndate on which it was adopted and provides a direct link to the code chap-\\nter(s) and section(s) included in that ordinance. For Ordinance No. 12-O-\\n03, the provided link leads directly to Section 14, although we note the\\nhyperlink text is mislabeled as “§ 4-1/2.14”. Searching for “12-O-03” in the\\npage’s search bar does not lead one to the proper chapter, section, or the\\nordinance cross-reference chart.\\n 3 One outlier plaintiff, Heather Bendl, received multiple violation no-\\ntices but did not voluntarily pay the attached fines. Her state income tax\\nreturn was garnished for the amount due in February 2018, but she later\\nreceived another violation notice in April 2018. The fine for that violation\\nremained unpaid at the time of the filing of the amended complaint.\\n\\fNo. 18-3729 5\\n\\njudgment. They argued the violation notices were void ab in-\\nitio because the notation “12-O-03” does not suffice as a “spe-\\ncific reference to that section of the [Code] allegedly violated.”\\nInstead, reading Lakemoor Municipal Code §§ 1.01, 41-1/2.01,\\nand 41-1/2.14(C)(4)(c) together, they contended the violation\\nnotices must contain a citation to Chapter 41-1/2 of the Code\\nalong with the section number of the IVC dealing with red\\nlight violations (IVC § 11-306(c)). Therefore, the plaintiffs as-\\nserted the proper citation is “Lakemoor Mun. Code § 41-\\n1/2.11-306(c).” They claimed Lakemoor deprived them of due\\nprocess by not including a challenge to the notice’s validity as\\nan available defense under Section 14(C)(6). In addition to\\ntheir due process claim, the plaintiffs asserted a state law un-\\njust enrichment claim based on the same allegations.4\\n The district court held the notices were valid because Sec-\\ntion 14 incorporates by reference IVC § 11-306(c) and “12-O-\\n03” is a parallel session law citation to Section 14 that satisfies\\nthe “specific reference” requirement. Moreover, the district\\n\\n\\n 4 The plaintiffs also asserted a due process claim under the Illinois\\nConstitution and a claim for injunctive relief as a separate count. The\\nplaintiffs abandoned the state constitutional claim at the district court.\\nWith respect to injunctive relief, that is a remedy, not a cause of action,\\nand thus should not be pleaded as a separate count. See Guardians Ass’n v.\\nCivil Serv. Com’n, 463 U.S. 582, 595 (1983) (“Whether a litigant has a cause\\nof action ‘is analytically distinct and prior to the question of what relief, if\\nany, a litigant may be entitled to receive.”); CustomGuide v. CareerBuilder,\\nLLC, 813 F. Supp. 2d 990, 1002 (N.D. Ill. 2011) (“An injunction ‘is an equi-\\ntable remedy, not a separate cause of action.’”). The district court properly\\ndismissed that count on that basis. Furthermore, because we hold the\\nplaintiffs failed to state a claim for violation of due process or unjust en-\\nrichment, they are not entitled to injunctive relief.\\n\\f6 No. 18-3729\\n\\ncourt held the plaintiffs were not deprived of due process by\\nthe limitation of defenses because the defense they sought to\\nassert was not viable. The district court dismissed the case.\\nThe plaintiffs appeal.\\n II. Analysis\\n The plaintiffs assert a due process claim under the Four-\\nteenth Amendment and a state law unjust enrichment claim\\nand seek declaratory judgment.5 We review the district court’s\\ndismissal de novo. Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1081\\n(7th Cir. 2008). “We may affirm a district court’s dismissal or-\\nder on any basis supported by the record.” Craig v. Rich Tp.\\nHigh Sch. Dist. 227, 736 F.3d 1110, 1118 (7th Cir. 2013).\\n A. Due Process Claim\\n The plaintiffs do not invoke the “substantive” due process\\ndoctrine. Instead, their claim asserts only that they were not\\nafforded the minimum procedural protections guaranteed by\\nthe Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.\\n In analyzing a procedural due process claim, we follow a\\ntwo-step process. First, we determine if the plaintiff has been\\ndeprived of a liberty or property interest. Second, we deter-\\nmine if the plaintiff was provided constitutionally sufficient\\nprocess. Grant v. Trs. of Ind. Univ., 870 F.3d 562, 571 (7th Cir.\\n2017). Lakemoor does not dispute the plaintiffs have a pro-\\ntected property interest in the $100 they were fined for each\\nred light violation. Thus, the only question is what—or how\\nmuch—process was due for that deprivation.\\n\\n\\n\\n 5 We have supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim pursuant\\n\\nto 28 U.S.C. § 1367.\\n\\fNo. 18-3729 7\\n\\n “The cornerstone of due process is notice and the oppor-\\ntunity to be heard ‘at a meaningful time and in a meaningful\\nmanner.’” Id. (quoting Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333\\n(1976)). In this case, the plaintiffs received both. They received\\na written notice of each violation, which included a descrip-\\ntion and photograph of the violation as well as the time, date,\\nand location where it occurred. They also had an opportunity\\nto contest the violation before a hearing officer, and the viola-\\ntion notices explained in detail how to request such a hearing.\\nDespite this, the plaintiffs argue they were denied a meaning-\\nful opportunity for hearing because Section 14 limits the de-\\nfenses they can raise before the hearing officer. The limited\\ndefenses do not include challenging the violation notice as\\nvoid for failure to comply with Section 14’s requirements.\\nThis argument is unavailing.\\n The requirements of due process are not rigid; rather, due\\nprocess “is flexible and requires only ‘such procedural protec-\\ntions as the particular situation demands.’” Riano v. McDon-\\nald, 833 F.3d 830, 834 (7th Cir. 2016) (quoting Ringquist v.\\nHampton, 582 F.2d 1138, 1140 (7th Cir. 1978)). Less process is\\ndue where less is at stake. Van Harken v. City of Chicago, 103\\nF.3d 1346, 1353 (7th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, we consider three\\nfactors when determining what process is due before the gov-\\nernment effects a deprivation: (1) the nature of the private in-\\nterest at stake, (2) the risk of erroneous deprivation through\\nthe procedures used, and (3) the governmental interest.\\nMathews, 424 U.S. at 334–35.\\n First, the private interest at stake in this case—a $100\\nfine—is relatively small. See Van Harken, 103 F.3d at 1353 (find-\\ning less process was due where maximum possible penalty\\nfor parking violation was “only $100”). We do not pretend a\\n\\f8 No. 18-3729\\n\\n$100 fine is of no consequence. However, in the grand scheme\\nof deprivations the government can effect, including impris-\\nonment or the seizure of highly valuable property, a $100 fine\\nis among the less serious sort. Accordingly, this factor sug-\\ngests less process was required here.\\n Second, Lakemoor’s limitation of defenses does not pre-\\nsent a risk of erroneous deprivation. Lakemoor allows alleged\\nviolators to contest the violation on various grounds that, if\\ntrue, would refute or alleviate culpability. For example, Sec-\\ntion 14 allows a recipient of a violation notice to assert, inter\\nalia, the following arguments as defenses: the vehicle was\\nowned by or leased to another individual at the time of the\\nviolation; the driver passed through the red light in order to\\nyield to an emergency vehicle; the vehicle cannot be ade-\\nquately identified in the photo; or the driver was already is-\\nsued a citation for the same violation. Lakemoor Mun. Code\\n§ 41-1/2.14(C)(6). By contrast, the plaintiffs’ desired defense\\n(namely, the violation notice did not contain a proper citation\\nto the Code section allegedly violated) has no bearing on cul-\\npability. Preventing alleged violators from asserting this tech-\\nnicality as a defense does not present a risk of erroneous dep-\\nrivation. Thus, this factor weighs in favor of finding the pro-\\ncess provided was constitutionally sufficient.\\n Finally, limiting the universe of possible defenses furthers\\nthe government’s interest in administrative efficiency. In\\nMathews, the Supreme Court noted as relevant the “fiscal and\\nadministrative burdens that the additional or substitute pro-\\ncedural requirement would entail.” 424 U.S. at 335; see also\\nCont’l Training Servs., Inc. v. Cavazos, 893 F.2d 877, 893 (7th Cir.\\n1990) (stating the “conservation of resources and administra-\\ntive efficiency” are “unquestionably” governmental\\n\\fNo. 18-3729 9\\n\\ninterests). Requiring the hearing officer to entertain any de-\\nfenses the alleged violator desires to raise, even those with no\\nbearing on culpability, would create a greater administrative\\nburden and cost for Lakemoor. This factor supports Lake-\\nmoor’s choice to limit the possible defenses to those that re-\\nfute or alleviate culpability.\\n We have previously held a plaintiff is not deprived of a\\nmeaningful opportunity to be heard simply because the de-\\nfense he wishes to assert is not available to him at the pro-\\nvided hearing. Cochran v. Ill. State Toll Highway Auth., 828 F.3d\\n597, 601 (7th Cir. 2016). In Cochran, the plaintiff received notice\\nof a toll violation and was entitled to request a hearing. How-\\never, because the toll violation was a strict liability offense, the\\nplaintiff was prevented from presenting a knowledge defense\\nat the hearing. He argued that this limitation of his defenses\\nrendered the opportunity for hearing meaningless, but we\\ndisagreed. “Although the knowledge defense was not availa-\\nble, other defenses were. Thus, plaintiff was not precluded\\nfrom presenting any defense, and the hearing was not mean-\\ningless.” Id.\\n Similarly, the fact that the plaintiffs in this case could not\\nassert a defense based on the violation notice’s lack of a Code\\ncitation does not mean that the hearing—at which they could\\nhave raised several other defenses—would have been mean-\\ningless. The process which the plaintiffs received was consti-\\ntutionally sufficient, and they have, therefore, failed to state a\\nfederal due process claim.\\n B. Unjust Enrichment Claim\\n The plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim is based on the\\nsame underlying allegations as the due process claim. They\\n\\f10 No. 18-3729\\n\\nassert Lakemoor has been unjustly enriched by receiving pay-\\nment of fines to which it was not entitled.\\n The plaintiffs argue the violation notices were void ab ini-\\ntio because they did not include a proper citation to “that sec-\\ntion of the [Code] allegedly violated” as required by Section\\n14. See Lakemoor Mun. Code § 41-1/2.14(C)(4)(c). This argu-\\nment fails because there is no indication that the “specific ref-\\nerence” requirement was intended to be read as a mandatory\\nprovision rather than a directory one.\\n “A mandatory provision and a directory provision are\\nboth couched in obligatory language, but they differ in that\\nnoncompliance with a mandatory provision vitiates the gov-\\nernmental action, whereas noncompliance with a directory\\nprovision has no such effect.” In re M.I., 2011 IL App (1st)\\n100865, ¶ 47, 964 N.E.2d 72, 83. Under Illinois law, a proce-\\ndural command in a statute is presumed to be directory rather\\nthan mandatory. People v. Geiler, 2016 IL 119095, ¶ 18, 57\\nN.E.3d 1221, 1224–25. That presumption can be overcome\\nonly if (1) the statute uses negative language to prohibit fur-\\nther action in the event of noncompliance, or (2) the statute is\\ndesigned to protect a right that would generally be injured if\\nthe provision is read as directory. Id.\\n Although Section 14 states a violation notice “shall in-\\nclude” a “specific reference” to the Code section allegedly vi-\\nolated, we see no basis for overturning the presumption that\\nthis requirement is directory rather than mandatory. First,\\nSection 14 contains no negative language prohibiting Lake-\\nmoor from taking further action in the event of noncompli-\\nance.\\n\\fNo. 18-3729 11\\n\\n Second, although the plaintiffs argue their right to be fully\\ninformed of an alleged violation would be injured by a direc-\\ntory reading, this is simply not the case. The plaintiffs suffered\\nno failure of notice caused by the “12-O-03” notation. The no-\\ntice of violation each plaintiff received includes multiple pho-\\ntographs of each plaintiffs’ registered vehicle in the act of en-\\ntering an intersection on a red light, with the license plate vis-\\nible, and describes the photographs as evidencing “a violation\\nof a red light signal and/or law pertaining to ‘Right Turn on\\nRed.’” Each notice also includes the time, date, and location of\\nthe violation. Further, each notice provides detailed infor-\\nmation about the procedures for contesting the violation, the\\ndate by which the fine must be paid or the violation contested,\\nand a full list of possible defenses derived from Section 14.\\n Everything the plaintiffs needed to know to contest the vi-\\nolation was fully and clearly explained in the notice of viola-\\ntion itself. The plaintiffs were not prejudiced by the lack of a\\nproper Code citation. Therefore, the presumption in favor of\\na directory reading has not been overcome.\\n Because we hold the “specific reference” provision is di-\\nrectory rather than mandatory, the plaintiffs’ argument the\\nviolation notices were void ab initio fails as a matter of law,\\nand their unjust enrichment claim falls with it.\\n III. Conclusion\\n The plaintiffs have failed to state a claim either for viola-\\ntion of due process or unjust enrichment. The district court\\nproperly dismissed the case. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the de-\\ncision of the district court.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4422222/\", \"author_raw\": \"Daniel Anthony Manion\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"MANION"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"SYKES"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"BRENNAN"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4644969/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":8,"string":"8"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Brian KNUTSON, Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. VILLAGE OF LAKEMOOR, Defendant-Appellee.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-08-01\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-3729\nBRIAN KNUTSON, et al.,\n Plaintiffs-Appellants,\n v.\n\nVILLAGE OF LAKEMOOR,\n Defendant-Appellee.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\n No. 1:18-cv-01804 — Marvin E. Aspen, Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED APRIL 17, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 1, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before MANION, SYKES, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\n MANION, Circuit Judge. This class action suit challenges the\nred light camera program of the Village of Lakemoor, Illinois.\nThe plaintiffs received violation notices from Lakemoor that\nthey claim are invalid because the notices lack a proper mu-\nnicipal code citation. They also claim Lakemoor denied them\ndue process by limiting the defenses that can be asserted be-\nfore a hearing officer to contest a violation. The district court\ndismissed the case for failure to state a claim. We affirm.\n\f2 No. 18-3729\n\n I. Background\n Describing the plaintiffs’ claims requires reading several\nprovisions of Lakemoor’s Municipal Code of Ordinances (the\n“Code”) together. First, Chapter 1 of the Code outlines the\nCode’s numbering system: “Each section number of this code\nshall consist of two component parts separated by a period,\nthe figure before the period referring to the chapter number\nand the figure after the period referring to the section within\nthe chapter.” Lakemoor Mun. Code § 1.01(C).\n Chapter 41-1/21 of the Code covers traffic violations. It in-\ncorporates by reference the Illinois Vehicle Code (IVC), and\nstates “[t]he section numbers used in the [IVC] shall be iden-\ntical to those section numbers in the Lakemoor Vehicle Code.\nTherefore, an ordinance violation shall be cited as ‘Chapter\n41-1/2,’ followed by the corresponding IVC section number.”\nId. § 41-1/2.01.\n In 2012, Lakemoor enacted an ordinance titled\n“AUTOMATED TRAFFIC LAW ENFORCEMENT\nPROGRAM,” and codified it as Section 14 of Chapter 41-1/2.\nId. § 41-1/2.14. Section 14 authorizes a system of red light cam-\neras located at certain intersections to detect and record red\nlight violations. Id. It states “[i]t shall be a violation of this sec-\ntion for anyone to operate a vehicle in disregard of a traffic\ncontrol device or to turn right on a red light where it is posted\n‘No Turn on Red,’” id. § 41-1/2.14(B), but it also incorporates\nby reference the IVC’s prohibition of the same conduct, id.\n§ 41-1/2.14(C)(1), (C)(4) (citing IVC § 11-306).\n\n\n\n 1\n This chapter is referred to as Chapter 41-1/2 because it falls between\nChapters 41 and 42.\n\fNo. 18-3729 3\n\n When a red light camera captures a vehicle committing a\nred light violation, Section 14 requires a written violation no-\ntice to be issued to the registered owner of the vehicle. Id. § 41-\n1/2.14(C)(4). Section 14 lists the information that the notice\n“shall include,” such as the name and address of the regis-\ntered owner of the vehicle, the location, date, and time of the\nviolation, and, importantly for this appeal, “[t]he violation\ncharged, with specific reference to that section of the Village\nof Lakemoor Municipal Code of Ordinances allegedly vio-\nlated.” Id. § 41-1/2.14(C)(4)(c). The violation notice constitutes\nprima facie evidence of a violation, which can be rebutted by\nseveral enumerated defenses. Id. § 41-1/2.14(C)(6). A recipient\nof a violation notice may request adjudication before a hear-\ning officer, where he may present only the defenses listed in\nSection 14(C)(6). The list of defenses does not include chal-\nlenges to the violation notice’s compliance with Section 14’s\nrequirements. Id.\n In its entirety, Section 14 comprises approximately 42 sub-\nsections and sub-subsections and takes up roughly four full\npages. At the end of Section 14 is the following parenthetical:\n“(Ord. 12-O-03, passed 1-26-2012),” referencing the ordinance\nnumber as it was passed and its date of passage. Lakemoor’s\nonline ordinance compilation includes a cross-reference chart\nthat links Ord. No. 12-O-03 to Section 14.2\n\n\n 2 See Village of Lakemoor, Illinois Code of Ordinances, AM. LEGAL PUBL’G\nCORP., http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Illinois/lakemoor_il/vil\nlageoflakemoorillinoiscodeofordinance?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$\nvid=amlegal:lakemoor_il (last visited Aug. 1, 2019). From this page, the\nentire municipal code is accessible through a navigation panel on the left\nside of the screen, arranged by chapters and sections. At the very bottom\n\f4 No. 18-3729\n\n Each plaintiff received at least one such notice of violation.\nNext to the label “Code Violation and Description,” the no-\ntices include simply the notation “12-O-03.” However, the no-\ntices also include photographs of the violation occurrence and\nstate these photographs depict “a violation of a red light sig-\nnal and/or law pertaining to ‘Right Turn on Red.’” The notices\nfurther provide a complete list of defenses and grounds for\ncontesting the violation as well as instructions for contesting\nthe violation by mail or in person.\n All but one of the named plaintiffs chose to pay the $100\nfine for each violation,3 and none requested a hearing. They\nthen filed suit in federal court, seeking to certify three classes:\n(1) all individuals who received a violation notice from Lake-\nmoor, (2) those who paid the fine, and (3) those who have not\npaid the fine. The plaintiffs alleged Lakemoor deprived them\nof due process under color of state law and sought declaratory\n\n\nof this navigation panel is a link labelled “REFERENCES TO\nORDINANCES” within the expandable folder “PARALLEL\nREFERENCES.” That page includes a chart of all ordinance numbers ar-\nranged in numerical order. For each ordinance number, the chart lists the\ndate on which it was adopted and provides a direct link to the code chap-\nter(s) and section(s) included in that ordinance. For Ordinance No. 12-O-\n03, the provided link leads directly to Section 14, although we note the\nhyperlink text is mislabeled as “§ 4-1/2.14”. Searching for “12-O-03” in the\npage’s search bar does not lead one to the proper chapter, section, or the\nordinance cross-reference chart.\n 3 One outlier plaintiff, Heather Bendl, received multiple violation no-\ntices but did not voluntarily pay the attached fines. Her state income tax\nreturn was garnished for the amount due in February 2018, but she later\nreceived another violation notice in April 2018. The fine for that violation\nremained unpaid at the time of the filing of the amended complaint.\n\fNo. 18-3729 5\n\njudgment. They argued the violation notices were void ab in-\nitio because the notation “12-O-03” does not suffice as a “spe-\ncific reference to that section of the [Code] allegedly violated.”\nInstead, reading Lakemoor Municipal Code §§ 1.01, 41-1/2.01,\nand 41-1/2.14(C)(4)(c) together, they contended the violation\nnotices must contain a citation to Chapter 41-1/2 of the Code\nalong with the section number of the IVC dealing with red\nlight violations (IVC § 11-306(c)). Therefore, the plaintiffs as-\nserted the proper citation is “Lakemoor Mun. Code § 41-\n1/2.11-306(c).” They claimed Lakemoor deprived them of due\nprocess by not including a challenge to the notice’s validity as\nan available defense under Section 14(C)(6). In addition to\ntheir due process claim, the plaintiffs asserted a state law un-\njust enrichment claim based on the same allegations.4\n The district court held the notices were valid because Sec-\ntion 14 incorporates by reference IVC § 11-306(c) and “12-O-\n03” is a parallel session law citation to Section 14 that satisfies\nthe “specific reference” requirement. Moreover, the district\n\n\n 4 The plaintiffs also asserted a due process claim under the Illinois\nConstitution and a claim for injunctive relief as a separate count. The\nplaintiffs abandoned the state constitutional claim at the district court.\nWith respect to injunctive relief, that is a remedy, not a cause of action,\nand thus should not be pleaded as a separate count. See Guardians Ass’n v.\nCivil Serv. Com’n, 463 U.S. 582, 595 (1983) (“Whether a litigant has a cause\nof action ‘is analytically distinct and prior to the question of what relief, if\nany, a litigant may be entitled to receive.”); CustomGuide v. CareerBuilder,\nLLC, 813 F. Supp. 2d 990, 1002 (N.D. Ill. 2011) (“An injunction ‘is an equi-\ntable remedy, not a separate cause of action.’”). The district court properly\ndismissed that count on that basis. Furthermore, because we hold the\nplaintiffs failed to state a claim for violation of due process or unjust en-\nrichment, they are not entitled to injunctive relief.\n\f6 No. 18-3729\n\ncourt held the plaintiffs were not deprived of due process by\nthe limitation of defenses because the defense they sought to\nassert was not viable. The district court dismissed the case.\nThe plaintiffs appeal.\n II. Analysis\n The plaintiffs assert a due process claim under the Four-\nteenth Amendment and a state law unjust enrichment claim\nand seek declaratory judgment.5 We review the district court’s\ndismissal de novo. Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1081\n(7th Cir. 2008). “We may affirm a district court’s dismissal or-\nder on any basis supported by the record.” Craig v. Rich Tp.\nHigh Sch. Dist. 227, 736 F.3d 1110, 1118 (7th Cir. 2013).\n A. Due Process Claim\n The plaintiffs do not invoke the “substantive” due process\ndoctrine. Instead, their claim asserts only that they were not\nafforded the minimum procedural protections guaranteed by\nthe Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.\n In analyzing a procedural due process claim, we follow a\ntwo-step process. First, we determine if the plaintiff has been\ndeprived of a liberty or property interest. Second, we deter-\nmine if the plaintiff was provided constitutionally sufficient\nprocess. Grant v. Trs. of Ind. Univ., 870 F.3d 562, 571 (7th Cir.\n2017). Lakemoor does not dispute the plaintiffs have a pro-\ntected property interest in the $100 they were fined for each\nred light violation. Thus, the only question is what—or how\nmuch—process was due for that deprivation.\n\n\n\n 5 We have supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim pursuant\n\nto 28 U.S.C. § 1367.\n\fNo. 18-3729 7\n\n “The cornerstone of due process is notice and the oppor-\ntunity to be heard ‘at a meaningful time and in a meaningful\nmanner.’” Id. (quoting Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333\n(1976)). In this case, the plaintiffs received both. They received\na written notice of each violation, which included a descrip-\ntion and photograph of the violation as well as the time, date,\nand location where it occurred. They also had an opportunity\nto contest the violation before a hearing officer, and the viola-\ntion notices explained in detail how to request such a hearing.\nDespite this, the plaintiffs argue they were denied a meaning-\nful opportunity for hearing because Section 14 limits the de-\nfenses they can raise before the hearing officer. The limited\ndefenses do not include challenging the violation notice as\nvoid for failure to comply with Section 14’s requirements.\nThis argument is unavailing.\n The requirements of due process are not rigid; rather, due\nprocess “is flexible and requires only ‘such procedural protec-\ntions as the particular situation demands.’” Riano v. McDon-\nald, 833 F.3d 830, 834 (7th Cir. 2016) (quoting Ringquist v.\nHampton, 582 F.2d 1138, 1140 (7th Cir. 1978)). Less process is\ndue where less is at stake. Van Harken v. City of Chicago, 103\nF.3d 1346, 1353 (7th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, we consider three\nfactors when determining what process is due before the gov-\nernment effects a deprivation: (1) the nature of the private in-\nterest at stake, (2) the risk of erroneous deprivation through\nthe procedures used, and (3) the governmental interest.\nMathews, 424 U.S. at 334–35.\n First, the private interest at stake in this case—a $100\nfine—is relatively small. See Van Harken, 103 F.3d at 1353 (find-\ning less process was due where maximum possible penalty\nfor parking violation was “only $100”). We do not pretend a\n\f8 No. 18-3729\n\n$100 fine is of no consequence. However, in the grand scheme\nof deprivations the government can effect, including impris-\nonment or the seizure of highly valuable property, a $100 fine\nis among the less serious sort. Accordingly, this factor sug-\ngests less process was required here.\n Second, Lakemoor’s limitation of defenses does not pre-\nsent a risk of erroneous deprivation. Lakemoor allows alleged\nviolators to contest the violation on various grounds that, if\ntrue, would refute or alleviate culpability. For example, Sec-\ntion 14 allows a recipient of a violation notice to assert, inter\nalia, the following arguments as defenses: the vehicle was\nowned by or leased to another individual at the time of the\nviolation; the driver passed through the red light in order to\nyield to an emergency vehicle; the vehicle cannot be ade-\nquately identified in the photo; or the driver was already is-\nsued a citation for the same violation. Lakemoor Mun. Code\n§ 41-1/2.14(C)(6). By contrast, the plaintiffs’ desired defense\n(namely, the violation notice did not contain a proper citation\nto the Code section allegedly violated) has no bearing on cul-\npability. Preventing alleged violators from asserting this tech-\nnicality as a defense does not present a risk of erroneous dep-\nrivation. Thus, this factor weighs in favor of finding the pro-\ncess provided was constitutionally sufficient.\n Finally, limiting the universe of possible defenses furthers\nthe government’s interest in administrative efficiency. In\nMathews, the Supreme Court noted as relevant the “fiscal and\nadministrative burdens that the additional or substitute pro-\ncedural requirement would entail.” 424 U.S. at 335; see also\nCont’l Training Servs., Inc. v. Cavazos, 893 F.2d 877, 893 (7th Cir.\n1990) (stating the “conservation of resources and administra-\ntive efficiency” are “unquestionably” governmental\n\fNo. 18-3729 9\n\ninterests). Requiring the hearing officer to entertain any de-\nfenses the alleged violator desires to raise, even those with no\nbearing on culpability, would create a greater administrative\nburden and cost for Lakemoor. This factor supports Lake-\nmoor’s choice to limit the possible defenses to those that re-\nfute or alleviate culpability.\n We have previously held a plaintiff is not deprived of a\nmeaningful opportunity to be heard simply because the de-\nfense he wishes to assert is not available to him at the pro-\nvided hearing. Cochran v. Ill. State Toll Highway Auth., 828 F.3d\n597, 601 (7th Cir. 2016). In Cochran, the plaintiff received notice\nof a toll violation and was entitled to request a hearing. How-\never, because the toll violation was a strict liability offense, the\nplaintiff was prevented from presenting a knowledge defense\nat the hearing. He argued that this limitation of his defenses\nrendered the opportunity for hearing meaningless, but we\ndisagreed. “Although the knowledge defense was not availa-\nble, other defenses were. Thus, plaintiff was not precluded\nfrom presenting any defense, and the hearing was not mean-\ningless.” Id.\n Similarly, the fact that the plaintiffs in this case could not\nassert a defense based on the violation notice’s lack of a Code\ncitation does not mean that the hearing—at which they could\nhave raised several other defenses—would have been mean-\ningless. The process which the plaintiffs received was consti-\ntutionally sufficient, and they have, therefore, failed to state a\nfederal due process claim.\n B. Unjust Enrichment Claim\n The plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim is based on the\nsame underlying allegations as the due process claim. They\n\f10 No. 18-3729\n\nassert Lakemoor has been unjustly enriched by receiving pay-\nment of fines to which it was not entitled.\n The plaintiffs argue the violation notices were void ab ini-\ntio because they did not include a proper citation to “that sec-\ntion of the [Code] allegedly violated” as required by Section\n14. See Lakemoor Mun. Code § 41-1/2.14(C)(4)(c). This argu-\nment fails because there is no indication that the “specific ref-\nerence” requirement was intended to be read as a mandatory\nprovision rather than a directory one.\n “A mandatory provision and a directory provision are\nboth couched in obligatory language, but they differ in that\nnoncompliance with a mandatory provision vitiates the gov-\nernmental action, whereas noncompliance with a directory\nprovision has no such effect.” In re M.I., 2011 IL App (1st)\n100865, ¶ 47, 964 N.E.2d 72, 83. Under Illinois law, a proce-\ndural command in a statute is presumed to be directory rather\nthan mandatory. People v. Geiler, 2016 IL 119095, ¶ 18, 57\nN.E.3d 1221, 1224–25. That presumption can be overcome\nonly if (1) the statute uses negative language to prohibit fur-\nther action in the event of noncompliance, or (2) the statute is\ndesigned to protect a right that would generally be injured if\nthe provision is read as directory. Id.\n Although Section 14 states a violation notice “shall in-\nclude” a “specific reference” to the Code section allegedly vi-\nolated, we see no basis for overturning the presumption that\nthis requirement is directory rather than mandatory. First,\nSection 14 contains no negative language prohibiting Lake-\nmoor from taking further action in the event of noncompli-\nance.\n\fNo. 18-3729 11\n\n Second, although the plaintiffs argue their right to be fully\ninformed of an alleged violation would be injured by a direc-\ntory reading, this is simply not the case. The plaintiffs suffered\nno failure of notice caused by the “12-O-03” notation. The no-\ntice of violation each plaintiff received includes multiple pho-\ntographs of each plaintiffs’ registered vehicle in the act of en-\ntering an intersection on a red light, with the license plate vis-\nible, and describes the photographs as evidencing “a violation\nof a red light signal and/or law pertaining to ‘Right Turn on\nRed.’” Each notice also includes the time, date, and location of\nthe violation. Further, each notice provides detailed infor-\nmation about the procedures for contesting the violation, the\ndate by which the fine must be paid or the violation contested,\nand a full list of possible defenses derived from Section 14.\n Everything the plaintiffs needed to know to contest the vi-\nolation was fully and clearly explained in the notice of viola-\ntion itself. The plaintiffs were not prejudiced by the lack of a\nproper Code citation. Therefore, the presumption in favor of\na directory reading has not been overcome.\n Because we hold the “specific reference” provision is di-\nrectory rather than mandatory, the plaintiffs’ argument the\nviolation notices were void ab initio fails as a matter of law,\nand their unjust enrichment claim falls with it.\n III. Conclusion\n The plaintiffs have failed to state a claim either for viola-\ntion of due process or unjust enrichment. The district court\nproperly dismissed the case. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the de-\ncision of the district court.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Brian KNUTSON, Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. VILLAGE OF LAKEMOOR, Defendant-Appellee.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-08-01\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-3729\\nBRIAN KNUTSON, et al.,\\n Plaintiffs-Appellants,\\n v.\\n\\nVILLAGE OF LAKEMOOR,\\n Defendant-Appellee.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 1:18-cv-01804 — Marvin E. Aspen, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED APRIL 17, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 1, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before MANION, SYKES, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\\n MANION, Circuit Judge. This class action suit challenges the\\nred light camera program of the Village of Lakemoor, Illinois.\\nThe plaintiffs received violation notices from Lakemoor that\\nthey claim are invalid because the notices lack a proper mu-\\nnicipal code citation. They also claim Lakemoor denied them\\ndue process by limiting the defenses that can be asserted be-\\nfore a hearing officer to contest a violation. The district court\\ndismissed the case for failure to state a claim. We affirm.\\n\\f2 No. 18-3729\\n\\n I. Background\\n Describing the plaintiffs’ claims requires reading several\\nprovisions of Lakemoor’s Municipal Code of Ordinances (the\\n“Code”) together. First, Chapter 1 of the Code outlines the\\nCode’s numbering system: “Each section number of this code\\nshall consist of two component parts separated by a period,\\nthe figure before the period referring to the chapter number\\nand the figure after the period referring to the section within\\nthe chapter.” Lakemoor Mun. Code § 1.01(C).\\n Chapter 41-1/21 of the Code covers traffic violations. It in-\\ncorporates by reference the Illinois Vehicle Code (IVC), and\\nstates “[t]he section numbers used in the [IVC] shall be iden-\\ntical to those section numbers in the Lakemoor Vehicle Code.\\nTherefore, an ordinance violation shall be cited as ‘Chapter\\n41-1/2,’ followed by the corresponding IVC section number.”\\nId. § 41-1/2.01.\\n In 2012, Lakemoor enacted an ordinance titled\\n“AUTOMATED TRAFFIC LAW ENFORCEMENT\\nPROGRAM,” and codified it as Section 14 of Chapter 41-1/2.\\nId. § 41-1/2.14. Section 14 authorizes a system of red light cam-\\neras located at certain intersections to detect and record red\\nlight violations. Id. It states “[i]t shall be a violation of this sec-\\ntion for anyone to operate a vehicle in disregard of a traffic\\ncontrol device or to turn right on a red light where it is posted\\n‘No Turn on Red,’” id. § 41-1/2.14(B), but it also incorporates\\nby reference the IVC’s prohibition of the same conduct, id.\\n§ 41-1/2.14(C)(1), (C)(4) (citing IVC § 11-306).\\n\\n\\n\\n 1\\n This chapter is referred to as Chapter 41-1/2 because it falls between\\nChapters 41 and 42.\\n\\fNo. 18-3729 3\\n\\n When a red light camera captures a vehicle committing a\\nred light violation, Section 14 requires a written violation no-\\ntice to be issued to the registered owner of the vehicle. Id. § 41-\\n1/2.14(C)(4). Section 14 lists the information that the notice\\n“shall include,” such as the name and address of the regis-\\ntered owner of the vehicle, the location, date, and time of the\\nviolation, and, importantly for this appeal, “[t]he violation\\ncharged, with specific reference to that section of the Village\\nof Lakemoor Municipal Code of Ordinances allegedly vio-\\nlated.” Id. § 41-1/2.14(C)(4)(c). The violation notice constitutes\\nprima facie evidence of a violation, which can be rebutted by\\nseveral enumerated defenses. Id. § 41-1/2.14(C)(6). A recipient\\nof a violation notice may request adjudication before a hear-\\ning officer, where he may present only the defenses listed in\\nSection 14(C)(6). The list of defenses does not include chal-\\nlenges to the violation notice’s compliance with Section 14’s\\nrequirements. Id.\\n In its entirety, Section 14 comprises approximately 42 sub-\\nsections and sub-subsections and takes up roughly four full\\npages. At the end of Section 14 is the following parenthetical:\\n“(Ord. 12-O-03, passed 1-26-2012),” referencing the ordinance\\nnumber as it was passed and its date of passage. Lakemoor’s\\nonline ordinance compilation includes a cross-reference chart\\nthat links Ord. No. 12-O-03 to Section 14.2\\n\\n\\n 2 See Village of Lakemoor, Illinois Code of Ordinances, AM. LEGAL PUBL’G\\nCORP., http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Illinois/lakemoor_il/vil\\nlageoflakemoorillinoiscodeofordinance?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$\\nvid=amlegal:lakemoor_il (last visited Aug. 1, 2019). From this page, the\\nentire municipal code is accessible through a navigation panel on the left\\nside of the screen, arranged by chapters and sections. At the very bottom\\n\\f4 No. 18-3729\\n\\n Each plaintiff received at least one such notice of violation.\\nNext to the label “Code Violation and Description,” the no-\\ntices include simply the notation “12-O-03.” However, the no-\\ntices also include photographs of the violation occurrence and\\nstate these photographs depict “a violation of a red light sig-\\nnal and/or law pertaining to ‘Right Turn on Red.’” The notices\\nfurther provide a complete list of defenses and grounds for\\ncontesting the violation as well as instructions for contesting\\nthe violation by mail or in person.\\n All but one of the named plaintiffs chose to pay the $100\\nfine for each violation,3 and none requested a hearing. They\\nthen filed suit in federal court, seeking to certify three classes:\\n(1) all individuals who received a violation notice from Lake-\\nmoor, (2) those who paid the fine, and (3) those who have not\\npaid the fine. The plaintiffs alleged Lakemoor deprived them\\nof due process under color of state law and sought declaratory\\n\\n\\nof this navigation panel is a link labelled “REFERENCES TO\\nORDINANCES” within the expandable folder “PARALLEL\\nREFERENCES.” That page includes a chart of all ordinance numbers ar-\\nranged in numerical order. For each ordinance number, the chart lists the\\ndate on which it was adopted and provides a direct link to the code chap-\\nter(s) and section(s) included in that ordinance. For Ordinance No. 12-O-\\n03, the provided link leads directly to Section 14, although we note the\\nhyperlink text is mislabeled as “§ 4-1/2.14”. Searching for “12-O-03” in the\\npage’s search bar does not lead one to the proper chapter, section, or the\\nordinance cross-reference chart.\\n 3 One outlier plaintiff, Heather Bendl, received multiple violation no-\\ntices but did not voluntarily pay the attached fines. Her state income tax\\nreturn was garnished for the amount due in February 2018, but she later\\nreceived another violation notice in April 2018. The fine for that violation\\nremained unpaid at the time of the filing of the amended complaint.\\n\\fNo. 18-3729 5\\n\\njudgment. They argued the violation notices were void ab in-\\nitio because the notation “12-O-03” does not suffice as a “spe-\\ncific reference to that section of the [Code] allegedly violated.”\\nInstead, reading Lakemoor Municipal Code §§ 1.01, 41-1/2.01,\\nand 41-1/2.14(C)(4)(c) together, they contended the violation\\nnotices must contain a citation to Chapter 41-1/2 of the Code\\nalong with the section number of the IVC dealing with red\\nlight violations (IVC § 11-306(c)). Therefore, the plaintiffs as-\\nserted the proper citation is “Lakemoor Mun. Code § 41-\\n1/2.11-306(c).” They claimed Lakemoor deprived them of due\\nprocess by not including a challenge to the notice’s validity as\\nan available defense under Section 14(C)(6). In addition to\\ntheir due process claim, the plaintiffs asserted a state law un-\\njust enrichment claim based on the same allegations.4\\n The district court held the notices were valid because Sec-\\ntion 14 incorporates by reference IVC § 11-306(c) and “12-O-\\n03” is a parallel session law citation to Section 14 that satisfies\\nthe “specific reference” requirement. Moreover, the district\\n\\n\\n 4 The plaintiffs also asserted a due process claim under the Illinois\\nConstitution and a claim for injunctive relief as a separate count. The\\nplaintiffs abandoned the state constitutional claim at the district court.\\nWith respect to injunctive relief, that is a remedy, not a cause of action,\\nand thus should not be pleaded as a separate count. See Guardians Ass’n v.\\nCivil Serv. Com’n, 463 U.S. 582, 595 (1983) (“Whether a litigant has a cause\\nof action ‘is analytically distinct and prior to the question of what relief, if\\nany, a litigant may be entitled to receive.”); CustomGuide v. CareerBuilder,\\nLLC, 813 F. Supp. 2d 990, 1002 (N.D. Ill. 2011) (“An injunction ‘is an equi-\\ntable remedy, not a separate cause of action.’”). The district court properly\\ndismissed that count on that basis. Furthermore, because we hold the\\nplaintiffs failed to state a claim for violation of due process or unjust en-\\nrichment, they are not entitled to injunctive relief.\\n\\f6 No. 18-3729\\n\\ncourt held the plaintiffs were not deprived of due process by\\nthe limitation of defenses because the defense they sought to\\nassert was not viable. The district court dismissed the case.\\nThe plaintiffs appeal.\\n II. Analysis\\n The plaintiffs assert a due process claim under the Four-\\nteenth Amendment and a state law unjust enrichment claim\\nand seek declaratory judgment.5 We review the district court’s\\ndismissal de novo. Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1081\\n(7th Cir. 2008). “We may affirm a district court’s dismissal or-\\nder on any basis supported by the record.” Craig v. Rich Tp.\\nHigh Sch. Dist. 227, 736 F.3d 1110, 1118 (7th Cir. 2013).\\n A. Due Process Claim\\n The plaintiffs do not invoke the “substantive” due process\\ndoctrine. Instead, their claim asserts only that they were not\\nafforded the minimum procedural protections guaranteed by\\nthe Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.\\n In analyzing a procedural due process claim, we follow a\\ntwo-step process. First, we determine if the plaintiff has been\\ndeprived of a liberty or property interest. Second, we deter-\\nmine if the plaintiff was provided constitutionally sufficient\\nprocess. Grant v. Trs. of Ind. Univ., 870 F.3d 562, 571 (7th Cir.\\n2017). Lakemoor does not dispute the plaintiffs have a pro-\\ntected property interest in the $100 they were fined for each\\nred light violation. Thus, the only question is what—or how\\nmuch—process was due for that deprivation.\\n\\n\\n\\n 5 We have supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim pursuant\\n\\nto 28 U.S.C. § 1367.\\n\\fNo. 18-3729 7\\n\\n “The cornerstone of due process is notice and the oppor-\\ntunity to be heard ‘at a meaningful time and in a meaningful\\nmanner.’” Id. (quoting Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333\\n(1976)). In this case, the plaintiffs received both. They received\\na written notice of each violation, which included a descrip-\\ntion and photograph of the violation as well as the time, date,\\nand location where it occurred. They also had an opportunity\\nto contest the violation before a hearing officer, and the viola-\\ntion notices explained in detail how to request such a hearing.\\nDespite this, the plaintiffs argue they were denied a meaning-\\nful opportunity for hearing because Section 14 limits the de-\\nfenses they can raise before the hearing officer. The limited\\ndefenses do not include challenging the violation notice as\\nvoid for failure to comply with Section 14’s requirements.\\nThis argument is unavailing.\\n The requirements of due process are not rigid; rather, due\\nprocess “is flexible and requires only ‘such procedural protec-\\ntions as the particular situation demands.’” Riano v. McDon-\\nald, 833 F.3d 830, 834 (7th Cir. 2016) (quoting Ringquist v.\\nHampton, 582 F.2d 1138, 1140 (7th Cir. 1978)). Less process is\\ndue where less is at stake. Van Harken v. City of Chicago, 103\\nF.3d 1346, 1353 (7th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, we consider three\\nfactors when determining what process is due before the gov-\\nernment effects a deprivation: (1) the nature of the private in-\\nterest at stake, (2) the risk of erroneous deprivation through\\nthe procedures used, and (3) the governmental interest.\\nMathews, 424 U.S. at 334–35.\\n First, the private interest at stake in this case—a $100\\nfine—is relatively small. See Van Harken, 103 F.3d at 1353 (find-\\ning less process was due where maximum possible penalty\\nfor parking violation was “only $100”). We do not pretend a\\n\\f8 No. 18-3729\\n\\n$100 fine is of no consequence. However, in the grand scheme\\nof deprivations the government can effect, including impris-\\nonment or the seizure of highly valuable property, a $100 fine\\nis among the less serious sort. Accordingly, this factor sug-\\ngests less process was required here.\\n Second, Lakemoor’s limitation of defenses does not pre-\\nsent a risk of erroneous deprivation. Lakemoor allows alleged\\nviolators to contest the violation on various grounds that, if\\ntrue, would refute or alleviate culpability. For example, Sec-\\ntion 14 allows a recipient of a violation notice to assert, inter\\nalia, the following arguments as defenses: the vehicle was\\nowned by or leased to another individual at the time of the\\nviolation; the driver passed through the red light in order to\\nyield to an emergency vehicle; the vehicle cannot be ade-\\nquately identified in the photo; or the driver was already is-\\nsued a citation for the same violation. Lakemoor Mun. Code\\n§ 41-1/2.14(C)(6). By contrast, the plaintiffs’ desired defense\\n(namely, the violation notice did not contain a proper citation\\nto the Code section allegedly violated) has no bearing on cul-\\npability. Preventing alleged violators from asserting this tech-\\nnicality as a defense does not present a risk of erroneous dep-\\nrivation. Thus, this factor weighs in favor of finding the pro-\\ncess provided was constitutionally sufficient.\\n Finally, limiting the universe of possible defenses furthers\\nthe government’s interest in administrative efficiency. In\\nMathews, the Supreme Court noted as relevant the “fiscal and\\nadministrative burdens that the additional or substitute pro-\\ncedural requirement would entail.” 424 U.S. at 335; see also\\nCont’l Training Servs., Inc. v. Cavazos, 893 F.2d 877, 893 (7th Cir.\\n1990) (stating the “conservation of resources and administra-\\ntive efficiency” are “unquestionably” governmental\\n\\fNo. 18-3729 9\\n\\ninterests). Requiring the hearing officer to entertain any de-\\nfenses the alleged violator desires to raise, even those with no\\nbearing on culpability, would create a greater administrative\\nburden and cost for Lakemoor. This factor supports Lake-\\nmoor’s choice to limit the possible defenses to those that re-\\nfute or alleviate culpability.\\n We have previously held a plaintiff is not deprived of a\\nmeaningful opportunity to be heard simply because the de-\\nfense he wishes to assert is not available to him at the pro-\\nvided hearing. Cochran v. Ill. State Toll Highway Auth., 828 F.3d\\n597, 601 (7th Cir. 2016). In Cochran, the plaintiff received notice\\nof a toll violation and was entitled to request a hearing. How-\\never, because the toll violation was a strict liability offense, the\\nplaintiff was prevented from presenting a knowledge defense\\nat the hearing. He argued that this limitation of his defenses\\nrendered the opportunity for hearing meaningless, but we\\ndisagreed. “Although the knowledge defense was not availa-\\nble, other defenses were. Thus, plaintiff was not precluded\\nfrom presenting any defense, and the hearing was not mean-\\ningless.” Id.\\n Similarly, the fact that the plaintiffs in this case could not\\nassert a defense based on the violation notice’s lack of a Code\\ncitation does not mean that the hearing—at which they could\\nhave raised several other defenses—would have been mean-\\ningless. The process which the plaintiffs received was consti-\\ntutionally sufficient, and they have, therefore, failed to state a\\nfederal due process claim.\\n B. Unjust Enrichment Claim\\n The plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim is based on the\\nsame underlying allegations as the due process claim. They\\n\\f10 No. 18-3729\\n\\nassert Lakemoor has been unjustly enriched by receiving pay-\\nment of fines to which it was not entitled.\\n The plaintiffs argue the violation notices were void ab ini-\\ntio because they did not include a proper citation to “that sec-\\ntion of the [Code] allegedly violated” as required by Section\\n14. See Lakemoor Mun. Code § 41-1/2.14(C)(4)(c). This argu-\\nment fails because there is no indication that the “specific ref-\\nerence” requirement was intended to be read as a mandatory\\nprovision rather than a directory one.\\n “A mandatory provision and a directory provision are\\nboth couched in obligatory language, but they differ in that\\nnoncompliance with a mandatory provision vitiates the gov-\\nernmental action, whereas noncompliance with a directory\\nprovision has no such effect.” In re M.I., 2011 IL App (1st)\\n100865, ¶ 47, 964 N.E.2d 72, 83. Under Illinois law, a proce-\\ndural command in a statute is presumed to be directory rather\\nthan mandatory. People v. Geiler, 2016 IL 119095, ¶ 18, 57\\nN.E.3d 1221, 1224–25. That presumption can be overcome\\nonly if (1) the statute uses negative language to prohibit fur-\\nther action in the event of noncompliance, or (2) the statute is\\ndesigned to protect a right that would generally be injured if\\nthe provision is read as directory. Id.\\n Although Section 14 states a violation notice “shall in-\\nclude” a “specific reference” to the Code section allegedly vi-\\nolated, we see no basis for overturning the presumption that\\nthis requirement is directory rather than mandatory. First,\\nSection 14 contains no negative language prohibiting Lake-\\nmoor from taking further action in the event of noncompli-\\nance.\\n\\fNo. 18-3729 11\\n\\n Second, although the plaintiffs argue their right to be fully\\ninformed of an alleged violation would be injured by a direc-\\ntory reading, this is simply not the case. The plaintiffs suffered\\nno failure of notice caused by the “12-O-03” notation. The no-\\ntice of violation each plaintiff received includes multiple pho-\\ntographs of each plaintiffs’ registered vehicle in the act of en-\\ntering an intersection on a red light, with the license plate vis-\\nible, and describes the photographs as evidencing “a violation\\nof a red light signal and/or law pertaining to ‘Right Turn on\\nRed.’” Each notice also includes the time, date, and location of\\nthe violation. Further, each notice provides detailed infor-\\nmation about the procedures for contesting the violation, the\\ndate by which the fine must be paid or the violation contested,\\nand a full list of possible defenses derived from Section 14.\\n Everything the plaintiffs needed to know to contest the vi-\\nolation was fully and clearly explained in the notice of viola-\\ntion itself. The plaintiffs were not prejudiced by the lack of a\\nproper Code citation. Therefore, the presumption in favor of\\na directory reading has not been overcome.\\n Because we hold the “specific reference” provision is di-\\nrectory rather than mandatory, the plaintiffs’ argument the\\nviolation notices were void ab initio fails as a matter of law,\\nand their unjust enrichment claim falls with it.\\n III. Conclusion\\n The plaintiffs have failed to state a claim either for viola-\\ntion of due process or unjust enrichment. The district court\\nproperly dismissed the case. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the de-\\ncision of the district court.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3766,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4645027,"string":"4,645,027"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Julian THOMAS, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Thompson, Defendant-Appellant."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"United States v. Julian Thomas"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-08-01"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-1356; 18-1519"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Easterbrook, Kanne, Hamilton\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"David Frank Hamilton\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-1356\\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\\n v.\\n\\nJULIAN THOMAS,\\n Defendant-Appellant.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Western District of Wisconsin.\\n No. 16-CR-00044-wmc-1 — William M. Conley, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED MARCH 27, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 1, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\nNo. 18-1519\\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\\n\\n v.\\n\\nJAMES THOMPSON,\\n Defendant-Appellant.\\n ____________________\\n\\f2 Nos. 18-1356 & 18-1519\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Western District of Wisconsin.\\n No. 16-CR-00044-wmc-2 — William M. Conley, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n SUBMITTED MARCH 27, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 1, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before EASTERBROOK, KANNE, and HAMILTON, Circuit\\nJudges.\\n HAMILTON, Circuit Judge. A federal grand jury indicted de-\\nfendants Julian Thomas and James Thompson for robbing a\\nbank. Count One charged them with armed bank robbery in\\nviolation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d). Count Two charged\\nthem with using and carrying a firearm by brandishing it dur-\\ning and in relation to a crime of violence in violation of 18\\nU.S.C. § 924(c). A joint trial was scheduled but then delayed—\\nfirst at Thomas’s request, and then again because Thompson’s\\ncounsel faced an irreconcilable conflict of interest because of\\na newly discovered witness for the government. Shortly be-\\nfore the delayed trial, however, Thompson pleaded guilty and\\nagreed to testify for the government against Thomas. Thomas\\nwent to trial. The jury found him guilty on both counts and\\nalso returned a special verdict finding that Thomas aided\\nThompson’s brandishing of a firearm in the bank robbery.\\nThe district court sentenced Thomas to thirteen years in\\nprison for the bank robbery and a consecutive seven years (the\\nstatutory minimum) for aiding and abetting Thompson’s\\nbrandishing.\\n Both defendants have appealed, but Thompson’s attorney\\nhas filed an Anders brief explaining that he does not believe\\nThompson has any viable arguments on appeal. We agree and\\n\\fNos. 18-1356 & 18-1519 3\\n\\ndismiss that appeal, No. 18-1519.1 Thomas contends on appeal\\nthat certain evidence and argument at his trial were improper,\\nthat the delay between his indictment and his trial violated\\nthe Speedy Trial Clause of the Sixth Amendment, and that the\\njury instructions for 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) were erroneous.\\nThomas failed to raise all but one of these issues in the district\\ncourt. We affirm his convictions and sentence in No. 18-1356.\\nI. Factual & Procedural Background\\n Thomas and Thompson were convicted of robbing the\\nPeoples Community Bank in Plain, a small town in Sauk\\nCounty, Wisconsin. The evidence at Thomas’s trial showed\\nthat he had been planning a bank robbery for some time.\\nThompson so testified, and he explained that Thomas had\\ntold him they would enter the bank and Thompson would\\nmonitor the bank’s tellers while Thomas would enter the\\nvault with the bank’s manager. They would then escape with\\na white female getaway driver.2\\n\\n 1 Thompson does not challenge the validity of his guilty plea, which\\nallowed him to avoid a mandatory life sentence. He was sentenced to ten\\nyears for the bank robbery and a consecutive seven years for brandishing\\nthe firearm. Neither his counsel nor we see any arguable procedural or\\nsubstantive error in the sentence. Thompson received his counsel’s Anders\\nbrief and submitted no response identifying any issues he wished to pur-\\nsue on appeal, as he could have under Circuit Rule 51(b).\\n 2 Robert Lynn, who was in the Dane County Jail with Thomas in\\nMarch 2014, testified that Thomas had told him he planned to rob a bank\\nin Plain by “pistol-whip[ping] some old ladies” to “keep the first respond-\\ners busy.” James Britton testified that as early as 2012 or 2013, Thomas had\\ntalked of his plan to rob a bank in a small town. Britton also testified that\\nThomas had solicited his help to find an accomplice and that Britton had\\nconnected Thomas with Thompson and received some of the robbery pro-\\nceeds.\\n\\f4 Nos. 18-1356 & 18-1519\\n\\n That is what actually happened. On the day of the robbery,\\nThomas and Beth Manbauman (who was being paid in her-\\noin) picked Thompson up at a bus stop. Thomas provided\\nThompson with a mask and loaded handgun. Thompson put\\nthe gun in his pocket. As Thompson and Thomas waited in an\\nalley outside the bank, Thompson removed the handgun\\nfrom his pocket. The two then ran into the bank. Both wore\\nmasks. Thompson pointed the gun at the bank’s tellers.\\nThompson got two tellers to empty their cash drawers while\\nThomas forced the bank’s manager to open the vault. They\\nfled with approximately $60,000 in a car driven by Manbau-\\nman.\\n The government introduced evidence showing that on the\\nday of the robbery, both Thompson and Manbauman had\\ncommunicated with a particular telephone number. The num-\\nber was registered to “Frank Smith” in Irvine, California, but\\nThompson testified that the number was listed in his tele-\\nphone as belonging to “Juice,” which was Thomas’s nick-\\nname. Other witnesses testified that Thomas went by the nick-\\nname “Juice.” The government was aware that Thomas would\\ntry to impeach Thompson’s credibility, so the government\\ncalled Thomas’s probation officer, Michael Ellestad, who tes-\\ntified that he had used that same telephone number to contact\\nThomas while supervising him between November 2014 and\\nJune 2015.\\n The government also introduced evidence that Thomas\\nhad a friend register as the straw owner of a used Mercedes\\nBenz automobile that he bought days after the robbery. Before\\ntrial, the court ruled that the government could introduce a\\nrecording of a telephone call Thomas made while in pretrial\\ndetention in which he said the car was worth $30,000. The lead\\n\\fNos. 18-1356 & 18-1519 5\\n\\ncase detective testified on cross-examination by the defense\\nthat he had listened to that telephone call.\\n Thomas did not call any witnesses but introduced three\\nexhibits. The defense theory was that James Britton, not\\nThomas, committed the robbery with Thompson. During\\nclosing arguments, according to Thomas, the prosecutor mis-\\nled the jury by repeatedly using the word “you” while ex-\\nplaining the reasonable-person standard for “intimidation”\\nunder 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). Without an objection from Thomas,\\nthe district court corrected the government in front of the jury,\\nexplaining that the inquiry is an objective one.\\n The district court instructed the jury on the elements of the\\ntwo counts against Thomas. Only the instructions for the fire-\\narm charge in Count Two are at issue in this appeal. The court\\ninstructed that a verdict of guilty on an aiding-and-abetting\\ntheory of liability required proof beyond a reasonable doubt\\nthat Thomas “knew before the bank robbery that James\\nThompson was going to use, carry, or brandish a firearm dur-\\ning and in relation to the bank robbery charged in Count 1,”\\nand that “[o]nce [Thomas] knew this, he intentionally facili-\\ntated” it. The court instructed the jurors that a guilty verdict\\nwould require that they “agree on at least one of these three\\nways”—using, carrying, or brandishing—“that James\\nThompson employed the firearm during the bank robbery.”\\nThe court included a special verdict form asking whether\\nThomas aided Thompson’s brandishing of a firearm, explain-\\ning: “The reason you’re being asked this question is to make\\ncertain that even if you found someone guilty of Count 2 …\\nyou all agree brandishing occurred.” This finding was neces-\\nsary to apply the statutory enhancement for brandishing. See\\n18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). When the jury asked a question\\n\\f6 Nos. 18-1356 & 18-1519\\n\\nwhile deliberating, the court told them that “aid,” “aids,” or\\n“aiding” have their ordinary meanings.\\n The jury found Thomas guilty of both counts and an-\\nswered yes to the special verdict question on brandishing. The\\ndistrict court sentenced Thomas to thirteen years in prison for\\nthe bank robbery charge and a consecutive sentence of seven\\nyears (the statutory minimum) for aiding and abetting\\nThompson’s brandishing of the firearm.\\nII. Discussion\\n Thomas raises five issues on appeal. Three relate to evi-\\ndence and argument at trial: (A) the admission of Thomas’s\\nprobation officer’s testimony that he used a particular tele-\\nphone number to contact Thomas; (B) the admission of the\\ntelephone call Thomas made while in pretrial detention say-\\ning that he purchased a car worth $30,000 after the bank rob-\\nbery; and (C) the government’s use of the word “you” instead\\nof “reasonable person” in its closing argument to describe the\\ninquiry for intimidation. The other two issues are (D) the\\nSpeedy Trial Clause claim and (E) a challenge to the jury in-\\nstructions for accomplice liability for brandishing a firearm\\nduring and in relation to a crime of violence.\\n When a defendant has objected to the admission of evi-\\ndence, we review the district court’s decision for an abuse of\\ndiscretion. United States v. Quiroz, 874 F.3d 562, 569 (7th Cir.\\n2017); United States v. Gorman, 613 F.3d 711, 717 (7th Cir. 2010).\\nWe generally review the legal accuracy of jury instructions de\\nnovo, while deferring to a district court’s discretion in the spe-\\ncific phrasing. See United States v. McClellan, 794 F.3d 743, 753\\n(7th Cir. 2015). But when a defendant fails to object to a po-\\ntential evidentiary error or jury instruction in the district\\n\\fNos. 18-1356 & 18-1519 7\\n\\ncourt, these forfeited objections are reviewed only for plain\\nerror. See United States v. Ambrose, 668 F.3d 943, 963 (7th Cir.\\n2012) (evidence); United States v. Lawson, 810 F.3d 1032, 1040\\n(7th Cir. 2016) (jury instructions); Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b) (“A\\nplain error that affects substantial rights may be considered\\neven though it was not brought to the court’s attention.”). On\\nplain-error review, we may reverse if: (1) an error occurred,\\n(2) the error was plain, (3) it affected the defendant’s substan-\\ntial rights, and (4) it seriously affected the fairness, integrity,\\nor public reputation of the proceedings. United States v. Olano,\\n507 U.S. 725, 732–38 (1993); United States v. Pierson, 925 F.3d\\n913, 919 (7th Cir. 2019). In the district court, Thomas objected\\nonly to the admission of the telephone call discussing the\\n$30,000 car, so we review the district court’s decision to admit\\nit under an abuse of discretion standard. We review all other\\nissues only for plain error.\\n A. Testimony of the Probation Officer\\n The government called Thomas’s probation officer to tes-\\ntify that he used a specific telephone number to contact\\nThomas in supervising him on probation. The Federal Rules\\nof Evidence sharply restrict admission of an accused defend-\\nant’s prior convictions. E.g., Fed. R. Evid. 404, 609. The re-\\nstrictions are designed to ensure that a defendant is convicted\\nbased on the evidence relevant to the charged offenses, not a\\nsupposed propensity to commit crimes based on evidence of\\nprior convictions. See United States v. Gomez, 763 F.3d 845,\\n855–56 (7th Cir. 2014) (en banc); United States v. Beck, 625 F.3d\\n410, 416 (7th Cir. 2010). We have repeatedly cautioned trial\\ncourts to consider carefully the introduction of previous con-\\nvictions. See, e.g., Beck, 625 F.3d at 416, citing United States v.\\nTaylor, 522 F.3d 731, 732–33 (7th Cir. 2008).\\n\\f8 Nos. 18-1356 & 18-1519\\n\\n In this case, there was not an explicit statement that\\nThomas was previously convicted of a crime, but we assume\\njurors would understand that a person on probation has pre-\\nviously been convicted of a crime. The testimony of Officer\\nEllestad that he used the telephone number to contact Thomas\\ncould establish Thomas’s identity and connection to the tele-\\nphone number, which is a permissible purpose under Rule\\n404(b). Yet, in response to a proper objection, the district court\\nwould still need to weigh its probative value against the risk\\nof unfair prejudice under Rules 403 and 404(b). Taylor, 522\\nF.3d at 732–33.\\n Without an objection, the district court did not plainly err\\nin admitting Officer Ellestad’s testimony. The testimony was\\nrelevant to show that the telephone number belonged to\\nThomas and that he used the number to coordinate with\\nThompson and Manbauman. Thomas disputed his involve-\\nment in the planning and execution of the robbery. He also\\ndisputed Thompson’s testimony explaining that he commu-\\nnicated with Thomas using that telephone number. The cor-\\nroborating testimony of Thomas’s probation officer—includ-\\ning his job title, which established that he clearly knew how\\nto get in touch with Thomas—had significant probative value.\\n When a defendant objects to evidence that will put the fact\\nof a prior conviction before the jury, the trial judge should\\nconsider whether other evidence might serve the same pur-\\npose and should weigh probative value against the risk of un-\\nfair prejudice. See United States v. Loughry, 660 F.3d 965, 974\\n(7th Cir. 2011) (“availability of other means of proof is an ap-\\npropriate factor to consider in determining the relevance of an\\nitem of evidence”), citing Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S.\\n172, 182–84 (1997). If Thomas had been willing to stipulate\\n\\fNos. 18-1356 & 18-1519 9\\n\\nthat the telephone number was his, there would have been no\\nreason to introduce his probation officer’s testimony. But\\nThomas disputed whether the number belonged to him. That\\nwas his right, of course, but the government was entitled to\\noffer evidence to corroborate Thompson’s testimony tying\\nThomas to the telephone number.\\n Also, the risk of unfair prejudice here was reduced. The\\njury was already aware through other, proper evidence that\\nThomas had a criminal history. The defense itself referred to\\nThomas’s criminal history multiple times. The defense noted\\nThomas’s prior incarceration with government witness Rob-\\nert Lynn in its opening statement. See Trial Tr. I-120 (“You’ll\\nalso hear that Detective Sabol finds out a couple months after\\nthe robbery that Mr. Thomas was in jail with a guy named\\nRobert Lynn. … They were in jail together the spring be-\\nfore.”). Thomas did not object to the introduction of Lynn’s\\ntestimony later in the trial. The defense’s opening statement\\nalso acknowledged:\\n During this trial you will learn that Mr. Thomas\\n is not a squeaky clean guy. We are not going to\\n try to pretend he’s something he’s not. He hangs\\n out with unsavory characters. Sometimes he\\n sells drugs to get by. Sometimes he steals credit\\n cards, forgery, makes his money that way, stuff\\n like that.\\nIn closing argument, the defense reiterated:\\n I know that Mr. Thomas is not a great guy. …\\n That’s not what makes him guilty of robbery.\\n Because those other bad acts, that evidence that,\\n like, “Hey, man, you’re with some unsavory\\n\\f10 Nos. 18-1356 & 18-1519\\n\\n folks. You’re a heroin dealer. You know, youʹre\\n the kind of guy that steals iPads and does credit\\n card fraud. You are a despicable human be-\\n ing”—if the charge was you’re a despicable hu-\\n man being, go for it, guilty, guilty, but it’s not.\\n Given these references from the defense, Officer Ellestad’s\\nreference to being Thomas’s probation officer was not un-\\nfairly prejudicial and did not outweigh the probative value of\\nhis testimony. See Fed. R. Evid. 403. Thomas’s criminal past\\n“was already before the jury,” and the likelihood that this as-\\npect of Officer Ellestad’s testimony “had any effect on the jury\\nis negligible.” United States v. Courtright, 632 F.3d 363, 370 (7th\\nCir. 2011). We doubt there was any error, and there certainly\\nwas no plain error, in admitting this testimony.\\n B. The $30,000 Car Telephone Call\\n Before trial, the government informed the court that it\\nwould offer a recording of a telephone call Thomas made\\nwhile in pretrial detention in which he said that a Mercedes\\nBenz he bought shortly after the robbery was worth $30,000.\\nThomas objected to this evidence, so we review the court’s\\ndecision to admit it for an abuse of discretion. United States v.\\nCunningham, 462 F.3d 708, 712 (7th Cir. 2006). While this is not\\nthe plain-error standard, this standard is still deferential.\\nUnited States v. Ozuna, 561 F.3d 728, 738 (7th Cir. 2009).\\n This issue has become a bit muddled factually. Shortly be-\\nfore oral argument on appeal, the government filed a letter\\nexplaining that the portion of this telephone call referring to\\nthe supposed $30,000 value of the car was “unintentionally\\ndeleted … from the recordings presented to the jury.” The ju-\\nrors heard only the portions of the recording where Thomas\\n\\fNos. 18-1356 & 18-1519 11\\n\\ndescribed the Mercedes as a “luxury car” that should run on\\npremium gas. In its opening statement, however, the govern-\\nment told the jury that it would hear about “jail phone calls”\\nin which Thomas said that the Mercedes was “all paid for and\\nthat it cost him $30,000.” Later in the trial, the defense on\\ncross-examination asked the lead case detective: “You heard\\nin a telephone call that Mr. Thomas said the car was worth\\n$30,000, correct?” The detective answered “Yes.” Since the\\nchallenged $30,000 statement was never actually played, the\\njury heard about it only in the government’s opening and the\\ndefense’s cross-examination of the detective. These discrep-\\nancies were not raised in the district court. We believe the\\nmost prudent way to proceed in this appeal is to review the\\ndistrict court’s ruling to admit the $30,000 statement as if the\\nstatement had been included in the recording played for the\\njury as part of the evidence.\\n The district court did not abuse its discretion in deciding\\nto admit this evidence. Thomas argues that the admission of\\nthis recording was cumulative because other evidence al-\\nready indicated that he bought the Mercedes Benz shortly af-\\nter the bank robbery. But Thomas would not stipulate to the\\nvalue of the car being $30,000, and at trial he asked questions\\nof witnesses suggesting, and argued in closing, that the value\\nwas much less.3 The government wanted to introduce this\\nstatement because $30,000 was roughly half of the proceeds of\\nthe bank robbery. The value of the car was disputed and\\nsomewhat relevant, and Thomas’s statement was not\\n\\n 3 While questioning the detective, Thomas noted that the car had\\n149,800 miles on it and “had been shot up”—suggesting that “a car that’s\\nbeen shot by a gun tends to depreciate in value” and would not be worth\\n$30,000. We express no opinion on the actual value of the car.\\n\\f12 Nos. 18-1356 & 18-1519\\n\\ncumulative because it was the only evidence of the supposed\\n$30,000 value of the car.\\n Thomas also argues that the reference to the “jail phone\\ncall” was unfairly prejudicial, but for reasons similar to those\\ndiscussed above regarding his probation officer, the reference\\nto his pretrial detention would have added little if anything\\nto what the jury already knew about him. We have explained\\nthat a defendant “may have been somewhat prejudiced” by\\nthe admission of recordings of telephone calls he made while\\nawaiting trial, but “the occasional reference to the fact that\\n[the defendant] had at some point been in jail” while awaiting\\ntrial is unlikely “to undermine the presumption of innocence\\nand the defendant’s right to a fair trial.” United States v. John-\\nson, 624 F.3d 815, 821–22 (7th Cir. 2010).\\n As with Officer Ellestad’s testimony, discussed above, if\\nThomas had stipulated to the supposed $30,000 value of the\\ncar, the government would not have had a good reason to in-\\ntroduce this evidence. See Loughry, 660 F.3d at 974. The dis-\\ntrict court gave Thomas the opportunity to so stipulate, but he\\nrefused—again, as he was perfectly entitled to. But without a\\nstipulation, this recording was the government’s only evi-\\ndence as to the supposed $30,000 value of the car. The value\\nof the car was disputed, and the jail telephone call was neither\\ncumulative nor unfairly prejudicial. The district court did not\\nabuse its discretion by deciding to allow evidence of\\nThomas’s statement that the Mercedes was worth $30,000.\\n C. “You” in the Government’s Closing Argument\\n For Count I—the bank-robbery offense—the government\\nwas required to prove that the money was taken from the\\nbank “by force and violence, or by intimidation.” 18 U.S.C.\\n\\fNos. 18-1356 & 18-1519 13\\n\\n§ 2113(a). “Intimidation exists when a bank robber’s words\\nand actions would cause an ordinary person to feel threat-\\nened, by giving rise to a reasonable fear that resistance or de-\\nfiance will be met with force.” United States v. Gordon, 642 F.3d\\n596, 598 (7th Cir. 2011). The district court instructed the jury\\nto that effect: “the term ‘intimidation’ means to say or do\\nsomething that would make a reasonable person feel threat-\\nened under the circumstances.”\\n In its closing argument, the government used language\\ndescribing this standard sometimes as objective and some-\\ntimes as subjective—referring sometimes to a “reasonable\\nperson” but also to “you,” arguably asking the jurors to think\\nabout how they themselves would have felt. The district court\\nfirmly corrected the prosecutor in front of the jury: “This is\\nthe second time you violated the golden rule. It’s not for you\\nto decide what you personally would feel. It is what a reason-\\nable person would feel, and I don’t want you to do it again.”\\nThe government apologized and explained to the jury: “So the\\njudge is right. It’s not what—it’s the reasonable person stand-\\nard, and you have to do the reasonable person standard.”\\n Even if the prosecutor’s language may have been im-\\nproper, the court immediately corrected it. Thomas raised no\\nobjection, and he was not deprived of a fair trial. See United\\nStates v. Common, 818 F.3d 323, 331 (7th Cir. 2016) (court must\\nfirst determine “whether the remarks by the prosecutor were\\nimproper when viewed in isolation,” and if so, the court will\\nthen “evaluate them in the context of the entire record and\\ndetermine whether defendant was deprived of a fair trial.”)\\n(citation and internal quotation marks omitted). We have ex-\\nplained: “As a general matter, improper comments during\\nclosing argument rarely rise to the level of reversible error,\\n\\f14 Nos. 18-1356 & 18-1519\\n\\nand considerable discretion is entrusted to the district court\\nto supervise the arguments of counsel.” United States v. Wil-\\nson, 985 F.2d 348, 353 (7th Cir. 1993) (citation and internal quo-\\ntation marks omitted); see also United States v. Berg, 640 F.3d\\n239, 253 (7th Cir. 2011).\\n There was no abuse of discretion here, let alone a plain er-\\nror. Lawyers sometimes are not as precise as they should be\\nwhen giving extemporaneous closing arguments. Even with-\\nout an objection, trial judges have the power to intervene if\\nthey believe that language has strayed too far from the\\nstraight and narrow, as the judge did here. To determine the\\neffect of prosecutorial comments on the fairness of the trial,\\nwe consider: “(1) the nature and seriousness of the alleged\\nmisconduct; (2) whether the defense invited the prosecutor’s\\nstatements; (3) whether the jury instructions adequately ad-\\ndressed the matter; (4) whether the defense had an oppor-\\ntunity to respond to the improper remarks; and (5) the weight\\nof the evidence against the defendant.” United States v. Klemis,\\n859 F.3d 436, 442 (7th Cir. 2017). This minor misstatement of\\nthe standard, which Judge Conley corrected immediately, did\\nnot deprive Thomas of his right to a fair trial. The jury instruc-\\ntions used the proper standard, and, given the evidence that\\nThompson brandished a gun to terrify the robbery victims,\\nnuances about the standards for intimidation were unlikely to\\nhave affected the verdict.\\n D. Speedy Trial\\n The Sixth Amendment guarantees the accused “the right\\nto a speedy and public trial.” In determining whether a pre-\\ntrial delay violates the Speedy Trial Clause, we consider: “(1)\\nthe length of the delay, (2) the reason for the delay, (3) the de-\\nfendant’s assertion of his speedy trial right, and (4) the\\n\\fNos. 18-1356 & 18-1519 15\\n\\nprejudice to the defendant caused by the delay.” United States\\nv. Koller, 956 F.2d 1408, 1413 (7th Cir. 1992), citing Barker v.\\nWingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530 (1972). Thomas claims that he was\\ndenied this right because his trial occurred almost eighteen\\nmonths after his indictment. He contends that his convictions\\nshould therefore be vacated. Thomas did not raise this consti-\\ntutional argument in the district court, so again we review\\nonly for plain error. See, e.g., United States v. O’Connor, 656\\nF.3d 630, 643 (7th Cir. 2011).4\\n “Delays of more than one year are considered presump-\\ntively prejudicial,” but the presumption may be rebutted. Id.\\nThe delays here were for legitimate reasons, and Thomas is\\nhard-pressed to point us to any actual prejudice he suffered.\\nThomas concedes that 281 days of the delay are not attributa-\\nble to the government and are not an issue. This period in-\\ncludes the 161 days from his indictment until Thomas himself\\nfiled an unopposed motion to move the trial date. It also in-\\ncludes the next 120 days, from Thomas’s motion to move the\\ntrial date until the conflict of interest arose with Thompson’s\\ncounsel. The period at issue is the following 242 days, from\\nthe date of the hearing on the conflict, when the district court\\ndenied Thomas’s request to keep his February 2017 trial date,\\nuntil the date of his trial (October 16, 2017). Thomas seeks to\\nattribute these 242 days of delay to the government.\\n This eight-month delay was unfortunate but justified. An\\nissue arose when the government sought to question a wit-\\nness who was also represented by Thompson’s counsel, cre-\\nating an irreconcilable conflict of interest. The district court\\n\\n\\n 4\\n Thomas objected to postponing the trial, but he did not raise a Sixth\\nAmendment challenge.\\n\\f16 Nos. 18-1356 & 18-1519\\n\\naccepted the government’s judgment that the prospective wit-\\nness’s testimony was important. The postponement was nec-\\nessary for Thompson to obtain new counsel, and the court\\nviewed the delay as “nobody’s fault,” but rather “one of those\\nirreconcilable conflicts” that required a continuance. We\\nagree. While unfortunate, this sort of delay sometimes just\\nhappens with multiple defendants.\\n Thomas objected to the continuance and sought a trial sep-\\narate from Thompson without further delay. That would have\\nbeen a permissible response to the problem, but the govern-\\nment responded with a legitimate objection of its own, saying\\nthat it could not “put the [bank] tellers through two trials,”\\ngiven their psychological trauma. The district court “easily”\\ndetermined that given the “nature of the government’s wit-\\nnesses,” it would not put them through two trials. The gov-\\nernment also explained that the delay was not ideal for the\\ngovernment itself because the bank-teller eyewitnesses, who\\nhad been traumatized by the robbery, were hoping to get the\\ntrial over with. These were all legitimate considerations in de-\\nciding how to solve an unexpected problem with no ideal so-\\nlution.\\n We recognize that the delay meant that Thomas spent an\\nadditional eight months in pretrial detention. But the Su-\\npreme Court in Barker v. Wingo found that a total of ten\\nmonths of detention before trial did not rise to the level of se-\\nrious prejudice. 407 U.S. at 530 & 534; see Koller, 956 F.2d at\\n1414–15 (finding no Sixth Amendment violation where ac-\\ncused spent months in pretrial detention while government\\nwitness recovered from heart surgery). Thomas has failed to\\ndemonstrate any significant impairment in his defense as a\\nresult of the delay. He speculates that, but for the delay,\\n\\fNos. 18-1356 & 18-1519 17\\n\\nThompson might not have decided to plead guilty and agree\\nto testify against him. Perhaps, but we have explained that the\\nfact that “the government was able to strengthen its case\\nagainst [the defendant] during the delay … is not relevant to\\nthe prejudice analysis.” United States v. Gearhart, 576 F.3d 459,\\n463 (7th Cir. 2009). The delay here did not violate the Speedy\\nTrial Clause of the Sixth Amendment.\\n E. Jury Instructions\\n Finally, Thomas argues that we should vacate his seven-\\nyear sentence on Count Two for aiding and abetting the bran-\\ndishing of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of vio-\\nlence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) because the court erred\\nin its jury instructions.5 Thomas contends that the jury was\\nnot adequately instructed on the government’s burden to\\nprove he had advance knowledge that Thompson would\\nbrandish a firearm during the robbery. Thomas did not raise\\nthis issue in the district court, so he faces an “uphill battle”\\nunder plain-error review. See United States v. Wheeler, 540 F.3d\\n683, 689 (7th Cir. 2008). Regardless, the jury instructions here\\nwere not erroneous.\\n Section 924(c) provides that “any person who, during and\\nin relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime\\n\\n 5 A “crime of violence” is defined as “an offense that is a felony and—\\n\\n(A) has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical\\nforce against the person or property of another, or (B) that by its nature,\\ninvolves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or prop-\\nerty of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.” 18\\nU.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A) & (B). The Supreme Court has now invalidated sub-\\nparagraph (B)—the residual clause—as unconstitutionally vague. United\\nStates v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319, 2336 (2019). That decision does not affect\\nthis case. The bank-robbery count is covered by subparagraph (A).\\n\\f18 Nos. 18-1356 & 18-1519\\n\\n… uses or carries a firearm,” is subject to a five-year statutory-\\nminimum consecutive sentence. 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) &\\n(D)(ii). The minimum consecutive sentence is increased to\\nseven years “if the firearm is brandished.” § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii).\\nUnder 18 U.S.C. § 2, a defendant who “aids, abets, counsels,\\ncommands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable\\nas a principal.” To apply the brandishing enhancement to\\nThomas, the jury needed to find beyond a reasonable doubt\\nthat Thomas knew in advance not only that Thompson would\\nbe carrying a firearm but also that he would be brandishing\\nit. United States v. Armour, 840 F.3d 904, 911 (7th Cir. 2016).\\n The jury instructions here properly conveyed the govern-\\nment’s burden to prove advance knowledge of brandishing to\\ntrigger the seven-year statutory-minimum sentence.\\nThomas’s main argument is that the district court did not re-\\npeat the advance knowledge requirement in the instructions\\non the special verdict form. But the special verdict form tied\\nits question directly to the instructions for Count Two, which\\nproperly included the advance knowledge requirement. A\\nreasonable juror would not have understood this special ver-\\ndict form to have dispensed with the advance knowledge re-\\nquirement set forth clearly in the instructions for Count Two.\\nThe point of the special verdict form was to make sure there\\nwas unanimity on brandishing (as opposed to simply using\\nor carrying). In no way did the form take away anything from\\nthe instructions to Count Two. It merely added this additional\\nsafeguard. The district court did not err in instructing the jury,\\nlet alone plainly err.\\n Thompson’s appeal (No. 18-1519) is DISMISSED. The dis-\\ntrict court’s judgment in Thomas’s case (No. 18-1356) is\\nAFFIRMED.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4422280/\", \"author_raw\": \"David Frank Hamilton\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"EASTERBROOK"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"KANNE"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"HAMILTON"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645027/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":8,"string":"8"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Julian THOMAS, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Thompson, Defendant-Appellant.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-08-01\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-1356\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\n v.\n\nJULIAN THOMAS,\n Defendant-Appellant.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Western District of Wisconsin.\n No. 16-CR-00044-wmc-1 — William M. Conley, Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED MARCH 27, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 1, 2019\n ____________________\n\nNo. 18-1519\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\n\n v.\n\nJAMES THOMPSON,\n Defendant-Appellant.\n ____________________\n\f2 Nos. 18-1356 & 18-1519\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Western District of Wisconsin.\n No. 16-CR-00044-wmc-2 — William M. Conley, Judge.\n ____________________\n\n SUBMITTED MARCH 27, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 1, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before EASTERBROOK, KANNE, and HAMILTON, Circuit\nJudges.\n HAMILTON, Circuit Judge. A federal grand jury indicted de-\nfendants Julian Thomas and James Thompson for robbing a\nbank. Count One charged them with armed bank robbery in\nviolation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d). Count Two charged\nthem with using and carrying a firearm by brandishing it dur-\ning and in relation to a crime of violence in violation of 18\nU.S.C. § 924(c). A joint trial was scheduled but then delayed—\nfirst at Thomas’s request, and then again because Thompson’s\ncounsel faced an irreconcilable conflict of interest because of\na newly discovered witness for the government. Shortly be-\nfore the delayed trial, however, Thompson pleaded guilty and\nagreed to testify for the government against Thomas. Thomas\nwent to trial. The jury found him guilty on both counts and\nalso returned a special verdict finding that Thomas aided\nThompson’s brandishing of a firearm in the bank robbery.\nThe district court sentenced Thomas to thirteen years in\nprison for the bank robbery and a consecutive seven years (the\nstatutory minimum) for aiding and abetting Thompson’s\nbrandishing.\n Both defendants have appealed, but Thompson’s attorney\nhas filed an Anders brief explaining that he does not believe\nThompson has any viable arguments on appeal. We agree and\n\fNos. 18-1356 & 18-1519 3\n\ndismiss that appeal, No. 18-1519.1 Thomas contends on appeal\nthat certain evidence and argument at his trial were improper,\nthat the delay between his indictment and his trial violated\nthe Speedy Trial Clause of the Sixth Amendment, and that the\njury instructions for 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) were erroneous.\nThomas failed to raise all but one of these issues in the district\ncourt. We affirm his convictions and sentence in No. 18-1356.\nI. Factual & Procedural Background\n Thomas and Thompson were convicted of robbing the\nPeoples Community Bank in Plain, a small town in Sauk\nCounty, Wisconsin. The evidence at Thomas’s trial showed\nthat he had been planning a bank robbery for some time.\nThompson so testified, and he explained that Thomas had\ntold him they would enter the bank and Thompson would\nmonitor the bank’s tellers while Thomas would enter the\nvault with the bank’s manager. They would then escape with\na white female getaway driver.2\n\n 1 Thompson does not challenge the validity of his guilty plea, which\nallowed him to avoid a mandatory life sentence. He was sentenced to ten\nyears for the bank robbery and a consecutive seven years for brandishing\nthe firearm. Neither his counsel nor we see any arguable procedural or\nsubstantive error in the sentence. Thompson received his counsel’s Anders\nbrief and submitted no response identifying any issues he wished to pur-\nsue on appeal, as he could have under Circuit Rule 51(b).\n 2 Robert Lynn, who was in the Dane County Jail with Thomas in\nMarch 2014, testified that Thomas had told him he planned to rob a bank\nin Plain by “pistol-whip[ping] some old ladies” to “keep the first respond-\ners busy.” James Britton testified that as early as 2012 or 2013, Thomas had\ntalked of his plan to rob a bank in a small town. Britton also testified that\nThomas had solicited his help to find an accomplice and that Britton had\nconnected Thomas with Thompson and received some of the robbery pro-\nceeds.\n\f4 Nos. 18-1356 & 18-1519\n\n That is what actually happened. On the day of the robbery,\nThomas and Beth Manbauman (who was being paid in her-\noin) picked Thompson up at a bus stop. Thomas provided\nThompson with a mask and loaded handgun. Thompson put\nthe gun in his pocket. As Thompson and Thomas waited in an\nalley outside the bank, Thompson removed the handgun\nfrom his pocket. The two then ran into the bank. Both wore\nmasks. Thompson pointed the gun at the bank’s tellers.\nThompson got two tellers to empty their cash drawers while\nThomas forced the bank’s manager to open the vault. They\nfled with approximately $60,000 in a car driven by Manbau-\nman.\n The government introduced evidence showing that on the\nday of the robbery, both Thompson and Manbauman had\ncommunicated with a particular telephone number. The num-\nber was registered to “Frank Smith” in Irvine, California, but\nThompson testified that the number was listed in his tele-\nphone as belonging to “Juice,” which was Thomas’s nick-\nname. Other witnesses testified that Thomas went by the nick-\nname “Juice.” The government was aware that Thomas would\ntry to impeach Thompson’s credibility, so the government\ncalled Thomas’s probation officer, Michael Ellestad, who tes-\ntified that he had used that same telephone number to contact\nThomas while supervising him between November 2014 and\nJune 2015.\n The government also introduced evidence that Thomas\nhad a friend register as the straw owner of a used Mercedes\nBenz automobile that he bought days after the robbery. Before\ntrial, the court ruled that the government could introduce a\nrecording of a telephone call Thomas made while in pretrial\ndetention in which he said the car was worth $30,000. The lead\n\fNos. 18-1356 & 18-1519 5\n\ncase detective testified on cross-examination by the defense\nthat he had listened to that telephone call.\n Thomas did not call any witnesses but introduced three\nexhibits. The defense theory was that James Britton, not\nThomas, committed the robbery with Thompson. During\nclosing arguments, according to Thomas, the prosecutor mis-\nled the jury by repeatedly using the word “you” while ex-\nplaining the reasonable-person standard for “intimidation”\nunder 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). Without an objection from Thomas,\nthe district court corrected the government in front of the jury,\nexplaining that the inquiry is an objective one.\n The district court instructed the jury on the elements of the\ntwo counts against Thomas. Only the instructions for the fire-\narm charge in Count Two are at issue in this appeal. The court\ninstructed that a verdict of guilty on an aiding-and-abetting\ntheory of liability required proof beyond a reasonable doubt\nthat Thomas “knew before the bank robbery that James\nThompson was going to use, carry, or brandish a firearm dur-\ning and in relation to the bank robbery charged in Count 1,”\nand that “[o]nce [Thomas] knew this, he intentionally facili-\ntated” it. The court instructed the jurors that a guilty verdict\nwould require that they “agree on at least one of these three\nways”—using, carrying, or brandishing—“that James\nThompson employed the firearm during the bank robbery.”\nThe court included a special verdict form asking whether\nThomas aided Thompson’s brandishing of a firearm, explain-\ning: “The reason you’re being asked this question is to make\ncertain that even if you found someone guilty of Count 2 …\nyou all agree brandishing occurred.” This finding was neces-\nsary to apply the statutory enhancement for brandishing. See\n18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). When the jury asked a question\n\f6 Nos. 18-1356 & 18-1519\n\nwhile deliberating, the court told them that “aid,” “aids,” or\n“aiding” have their ordinary meanings.\n The jury found Thomas guilty of both counts and an-\nswered yes to the special verdict question on brandishing. The\ndistrict court sentenced Thomas to thirteen years in prison for\nthe bank robbery charge and a consecutive sentence of seven\nyears (the statutory minimum) for aiding and abetting\nThompson’s brandishing of the firearm.\nII. Discussion\n Thomas raises five issues on appeal. Three relate to evi-\ndence and argument at trial: (A) the admission of Thomas’s\nprobation officer’s testimony that he used a particular tele-\nphone number to contact Thomas; (B) the admission of the\ntelephone call Thomas made while in pretrial detention say-\ning that he purchased a car worth $30,000 after the bank rob-\nbery; and (C) the government’s use of the word “you” instead\nof “reasonable person” in its closing argument to describe the\ninquiry for intimidation. The other two issues are (D) the\nSpeedy Trial Clause claim and (E) a challenge to the jury in-\nstructions for accomplice liability for brandishing a firearm\nduring and in relation to a crime of violence.\n When a defendant has objected to the admission of evi-\ndence, we review the district court’s decision for an abuse of\ndiscretion. United States v. Quiroz, 874 F.3d 562, 569 (7th Cir.\n2017); United States v. Gorman, 613 F.3d 711, 717 (7th Cir. 2010).\nWe generally review the legal accuracy of jury instructions de\nnovo, while deferring to a district court’s discretion in the spe-\ncific phrasing. See United States v. McClellan, 794 F.3d 743, 753\n(7th Cir. 2015). But when a defendant fails to object to a po-\ntential evidentiary error or jury instruction in the district\n\fNos. 18-1356 & 18-1519 7\n\ncourt, these forfeited objections are reviewed only for plain\nerror. See United States v. Ambrose, 668 F.3d 943, 963 (7th Cir.\n2012) (evidence); United States v. Lawson, 810 F.3d 1032, 1040\n(7th Cir. 2016) (jury instructions); Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b) (“A\nplain error that affects substantial rights may be considered\neven though it was not brought to the court’s attention.”). On\nplain-error review, we may reverse if: (1) an error occurred,\n(2) the error was plain, (3) it affected the defendant’s substan-\ntial rights, and (4) it seriously affected the fairness, integrity,\nor public reputation of the proceedings. United States v. Olano,\n507 U.S. 725, 732–38 (1993); United States v. Pierson, 925 F.3d\n913, 919 (7th Cir. 2019). In the district court, Thomas objected\nonly to the admission of the telephone call discussing the\n$30,000 car, so we review the district court’s decision to admit\nit under an abuse of discretion standard. We review all other\nissues only for plain error.\n A. Testimony of the Probation Officer\n The government called Thomas’s probation officer to tes-\ntify that he used a specific telephone number to contact\nThomas in supervising him on probation. The Federal Rules\nof Evidence sharply restrict admission of an accused defend-\nant’s prior convictions. E.g., Fed. R. Evid. 404, 609. The re-\nstrictions are designed to ensure that a defendant is convicted\nbased on the evidence relevant to the charged offenses, not a\nsupposed propensity to commit crimes based on evidence of\nprior convictions. See United States v. Gomez, 763 F.3d 845,\n855–56 (7th Cir. 2014) (en banc); United States v. Beck, 625 F.3d\n410, 416 (7th Cir. 2010). We have repeatedly cautioned trial\ncourts to consider carefully the introduction of previous con-\nvictions. See, e.g., Beck, 625 F.3d at 416, citing United States v.\nTaylor, 522 F.3d 731, 732–33 (7th Cir. 2008).\n\f8 Nos. 18-1356 & 18-1519\n\n In this case, there was not an explicit statement that\nThomas was previously convicted of a crime, but we assume\njurors would understand that a person on probation has pre-\nviously been convicted of a crime. The testimony of Officer\nEllestad that he used the telephone number to contact Thomas\ncould establish Thomas’s identity and connection to the tele-\nphone number, which is a permissible purpose under Rule\n404(b). Yet, in response to a proper objection, the district court\nwould still need to weigh its probative value against the risk\nof unfair prejudice under Rules 403 and 404(b). Taylor, 522\nF.3d at 732–33.\n Without an objection, the district court did not plainly err\nin admitting Officer Ellestad’s testimony. The testimony was\nrelevant to show that the telephone number belonged to\nThomas and that he used the number to coordinate with\nThompson and Manbauman. Thomas disputed his involve-\nment in the planning and execution of the robbery. He also\ndisputed Thompson’s testimony explaining that he commu-\nnicated with Thomas using that telephone number. The cor-\nroborating testimony of Thomas’s probation officer—includ-\ning his job title, which established that he clearly knew how\nto get in touch with Thomas—had significant probative value.\n When a defendant objects to evidence that will put the fact\nof a prior conviction before the jury, the trial judge should\nconsider whether other evidence might serve the same pur-\npose and should weigh probative value against the risk of un-\nfair prejudice. See United States v. Loughry, 660 F.3d 965, 974\n(7th Cir. 2011) (“availability of other means of proof is an ap-\npropriate factor to consider in determining the relevance of an\nitem of evidence”), citing Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S.\n172, 182–84 (1997). If Thomas had been willing to stipulate\n\fNos. 18-1356 & 18-1519 9\n\nthat the telephone number was his, there would have been no\nreason to introduce his probation officer’s testimony. But\nThomas disputed whether the number belonged to him. That\nwas his right, of course, but the government was entitled to\noffer evidence to corroborate Thompson’s testimony tying\nThomas to the telephone number.\n Also, the risk of unfair prejudice here was reduced. The\njury was already aware through other, proper evidence that\nThomas had a criminal history. The defense itself referred to\nThomas’s criminal history multiple times. The defense noted\nThomas’s prior incarceration with government witness Rob-\nert Lynn in its opening statement. See Trial Tr. I-120 (“You’ll\nalso hear that Detective Sabol finds out a couple months after\nthe robbery that Mr. Thomas was in jail with a guy named\nRobert Lynn. … They were in jail together the spring be-\nfore.”). Thomas did not object to the introduction of Lynn’s\ntestimony later in the trial. The defense’s opening statement\nalso acknowledged:\n During this trial you will learn that Mr. Thomas\n is not a squeaky clean guy. We are not going to\n try to pretend he’s something he’s not. He hangs\n out with unsavory characters. Sometimes he\n sells drugs to get by. Sometimes he steals credit\n cards, forgery, makes his money that way, stuff\n like that.\nIn closing argument, the defense reiterated:\n I know that Mr. Thomas is not a great guy. …\n That’s not what makes him guilty of robbery.\n Because those other bad acts, that evidence that,\n like, “Hey, man, you’re with some unsavory\n\f10 Nos. 18-1356 & 18-1519\n\n folks. You’re a heroin dealer. You know, youʹre\n the kind of guy that steals iPads and does credit\n card fraud. You are a despicable human be-\n ing”—if the charge was you’re a despicable hu-\n man being, go for it, guilty, guilty, but it’s not.\n Given these references from the defense, Officer Ellestad’s\nreference to being Thomas’s probation officer was not un-\nfairly prejudicial and did not outweigh the probative value of\nhis testimony. See Fed. R. Evid. 403. Thomas’s criminal past\n“was already before the jury,” and the likelihood that this as-\npect of Officer Ellestad’s testimony “had any effect on the jury\nis negligible.” United States v. Courtright, 632 F.3d 363, 370 (7th\nCir. 2011). We doubt there was any error, and there certainly\nwas no plain error, in admitting this testimony.\n B. The $30,000 Car Telephone Call\n Before trial, the government informed the court that it\nwould offer a recording of a telephone call Thomas made\nwhile in pretrial detention in which he said that a Mercedes\nBenz he bought shortly after the robbery was worth $30,000.\nThomas objected to this evidence, so we review the court’s\ndecision to admit it for an abuse of discretion. United States v.\nCunningham, 462 F.3d 708, 712 (7th Cir. 2006). While this is not\nthe plain-error standard, this standard is still deferential.\nUnited States v. Ozuna, 561 F.3d 728, 738 (7th Cir. 2009).\n This issue has become a bit muddled factually. Shortly be-\nfore oral argument on appeal, the government filed a letter\nexplaining that the portion of this telephone call referring to\nthe supposed $30,000 value of the car was “unintentionally\ndeleted … from the recordings presented to the jury.” The ju-\nrors heard only the portions of the recording where Thomas\n\fNos. 18-1356 & 18-1519 11\n\ndescribed the Mercedes as a “luxury car” that should run on\npremium gas. In its opening statement, however, the govern-\nment told the jury that it would hear about “jail phone calls”\nin which Thomas said that the Mercedes was “all paid for and\nthat it cost him $30,000.” Later in the trial, the defense on\ncross-examination asked the lead case detective: “You heard\nin a telephone call that Mr. Thomas said the car was worth\n$30,000, correct?” The detective answered “Yes.” Since the\nchallenged $30,000 statement was never actually played, the\njury heard about it only in the government’s opening and the\ndefense’s cross-examination of the detective. These discrep-\nancies were not raised in the district court. We believe the\nmost prudent way to proceed in this appeal is to review the\ndistrict court’s ruling to admit the $30,000 statement as if the\nstatement had been included in the recording played for the\njury as part of the evidence.\n The district court did not abuse its discretion in deciding\nto admit this evidence. Thomas argues that the admission of\nthis recording was cumulative because other evidence al-\nready indicated that he bought the Mercedes Benz shortly af-\nter the bank robbery. But Thomas would not stipulate to the\nvalue of the car being $30,000, and at trial he asked questions\nof witnesses suggesting, and argued in closing, that the value\nwas much less.3 The government wanted to introduce this\nstatement because $30,000 was roughly half of the proceeds of\nthe bank robbery. The value of the car was disputed and\nsomewhat relevant, and Thomas’s statement was not\n\n 3 While questioning the detective, Thomas noted that the car had\n149,800 miles on it and “had been shot up”—suggesting that “a car that’s\nbeen shot by a gun tends to depreciate in value” and would not be worth\n$30,000. We express no opinion on the actual value of the car.\n\f12 Nos. 18-1356 & 18-1519\n\ncumulative because it was the only evidence of the supposed\n$30,000 value of the car.\n Thomas also argues that the reference to the “jail phone\ncall” was unfairly prejudicial, but for reasons similar to those\ndiscussed above regarding his probation officer, the reference\nto his pretrial detention would have added little if anything\nto what the jury already knew about him. We have explained\nthat a defendant “may have been somewhat prejudiced” by\nthe admission of recordings of telephone calls he made while\nawaiting trial, but “the occasional reference to the fact that\n[the defendant] had at some point been in jail” while awaiting\ntrial is unlikely “to undermine the presumption of innocence\nand the defendant’s right to a fair trial.” United States v. John-\nson, 624 F.3d 815, 821–22 (7th Cir. 2010).\n As with Officer Ellestad’s testimony, discussed above, if\nThomas had stipulated to the supposed $30,000 value of the\ncar, the government would not have had a good reason to in-\ntroduce this evidence. See Loughry, 660 F.3d at 974. The dis-\ntrict court gave Thomas the opportunity to so stipulate, but he\nrefused—again, as he was perfectly entitled to. But without a\nstipulation, this recording was the government’s only evi-\ndence as to the supposed $30,000 value of the car. The value\nof the car was disputed, and the jail telephone call was neither\ncumulative nor unfairly prejudicial. The district court did not\nabuse its discretion by deciding to allow evidence of\nThomas’s statement that the Mercedes was worth $30,000.\n C. “You” in the Government’s Closing Argument\n For Count I—the bank-robbery offense—the government\nwas required to prove that the money was taken from the\nbank “by force and violence, or by intimidation.” 18 U.S.C.\n\fNos. 18-1356 & 18-1519 13\n\n§ 2113(a). “Intimidation exists when a bank robber’s words\nand actions would cause an ordinary person to feel threat-\nened, by giving rise to a reasonable fear that resistance or de-\nfiance will be met with force.” United States v. Gordon, 642 F.3d\n596, 598 (7th Cir. 2011). The district court instructed the jury\nto that effect: “the term ‘intimidation’ means to say or do\nsomething that would make a reasonable person feel threat-\nened under the circumstances.”\n In its closing argument, the government used language\ndescribing this standard sometimes as objective and some-\ntimes as subjective—referring sometimes to a “reasonable\nperson” but also to “you,” arguably asking the jurors to think\nabout how they themselves would have felt. The district court\nfirmly corrected the prosecutor in front of the jury: “This is\nthe second time you violated the golden rule. It’s not for you\nto decide what you personally would feel. It is what a reason-\nable person would feel, and I don’t want you to do it again.”\nThe government apologized and explained to the jury: “So the\njudge is right. It’s not what—it’s the reasonable person stand-\nard, and you have to do the reasonable person standard.”\n Even if the prosecutor’s language may have been im-\nproper, the court immediately corrected it. Thomas raised no\nobjection, and he was not deprived of a fair trial. See United\nStates v. Common, 818 F.3d 323, 331 (7th Cir. 2016) (court must\nfirst determine “whether the remarks by the prosecutor were\nimproper when viewed in isolation,” and if so, the court will\nthen “evaluate them in the context of the entire record and\ndetermine whether defendant was deprived of a fair trial.”)\n(citation and internal quotation marks omitted). We have ex-\nplained: “As a general matter, improper comments during\nclosing argument rarely rise to the level of reversible error,\n\f14 Nos. 18-1356 & 18-1519\n\nand considerable discretion is entrusted to the district court\nto supervise the arguments of counsel.” United States v. Wil-\nson, 985 F.2d 348, 353 (7th Cir. 1993) (citation and internal quo-\ntation marks omitted); see also United States v. Berg, 640 F.3d\n239, 253 (7th Cir. 2011).\n There was no abuse of discretion here, let alone a plain er-\nror. Lawyers sometimes are not as precise as they should be\nwhen giving extemporaneous closing arguments. Even with-\nout an objection, trial judges have the power to intervene if\nthey believe that language has strayed too far from the\nstraight and narrow, as the judge did here. To determine the\neffect of prosecutorial comments on the fairness of the trial,\nwe consider: “(1) the nature and seriousness of the alleged\nmisconduct; (2) whether the defense invited the prosecutor’s\nstatements; (3) whether the jury instructions adequately ad-\ndressed the matter; (4) whether the defense had an oppor-\ntunity to respond to the improper remarks; and (5) the weight\nof the evidence against the defendant.” United States v. Klemis,\n859 F.3d 436, 442 (7th Cir. 2017). This minor misstatement of\nthe standard, which Judge Conley corrected immediately, did\nnot deprive Thomas of his right to a fair trial. The jury instruc-\ntions used the proper standard, and, given the evidence that\nThompson brandished a gun to terrify the robbery victims,\nnuances about the standards for intimidation were unlikely to\nhave affected the verdict.\n D. Speedy Trial\n The Sixth Amendment guarantees the accused “the right\nto a speedy and public trial.” In determining whether a pre-\ntrial delay violates the Speedy Trial Clause, we consider: “(1)\nthe length of the delay, (2) the reason for the delay, (3) the de-\nfendant’s assertion of his speedy trial right, and (4) the\n\fNos. 18-1356 & 18-1519 15\n\nprejudice to the defendant caused by the delay.” United States\nv. Koller, 956 F.2d 1408, 1413 (7th Cir. 1992), citing Barker v.\nWingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530 (1972). Thomas claims that he was\ndenied this right because his trial occurred almost eighteen\nmonths after his indictment. He contends that his convictions\nshould therefore be vacated. Thomas did not raise this consti-\ntutional argument in the district court, so again we review\nonly for plain error. See, e.g., United States v. O’Connor, 656\nF.3d 630, 643 (7th Cir. 2011).4\n “Delays of more than one year are considered presump-\ntively prejudicial,” but the presumption may be rebutted. Id.\nThe delays here were for legitimate reasons, and Thomas is\nhard-pressed to point us to any actual prejudice he suffered.\nThomas concedes that 281 days of the delay are not attributa-\nble to the government and are not an issue. This period in-\ncludes the 161 days from his indictment until Thomas himself\nfiled an unopposed motion to move the trial date. It also in-\ncludes the next 120 days, from Thomas’s motion to move the\ntrial date until the conflict of interest arose with Thompson’s\ncounsel. The period at issue is the following 242 days, from\nthe date of the hearing on the conflict, when the district court\ndenied Thomas’s request to keep his February 2017 trial date,\nuntil the date of his trial (October 16, 2017). Thomas seeks to\nattribute these 242 days of delay to the government.\n This eight-month delay was unfortunate but justified. An\nissue arose when the government sought to question a wit-\nness who was also represented by Thompson’s counsel, cre-\nating an irreconcilable conflict of interest. The district court\n\n\n 4\n Thomas objected to postponing the trial, but he did not raise a Sixth\nAmendment challenge.\n\f16 Nos. 18-1356 & 18-1519\n\naccepted the government’s judgment that the prospective wit-\nness’s testimony was important. The postponement was nec-\nessary for Thompson to obtain new counsel, and the court\nviewed the delay as “nobody’s fault,” but rather “one of those\nirreconcilable conflicts” that required a continuance. We\nagree. While unfortunate, this sort of delay sometimes just\nhappens with multiple defendants.\n Thomas objected to the continuance and sought a trial sep-\narate from Thompson without further delay. That would have\nbeen a permissible response to the problem, but the govern-\nment responded with a legitimate objection of its own, saying\nthat it could not “put the [bank] tellers through two trials,”\ngiven their psychological trauma. The district court “easily”\ndetermined that given the “nature of the government’s wit-\nnesses,” it would not put them through two trials. The gov-\nernment also explained that the delay was not ideal for the\ngovernment itself because the bank-teller eyewitnesses, who\nhad been traumatized by the robbery, were hoping to get the\ntrial over with. These were all legitimate considerations in de-\nciding how to solve an unexpected problem with no ideal so-\nlution.\n We recognize that the delay meant that Thomas spent an\nadditional eight months in pretrial detention. But the Su-\npreme Court in Barker v. Wingo found that a total of ten\nmonths of detention before trial did not rise to the level of se-\nrious prejudice. 407 U.S. at 530 & 534; see Koller, 956 F.2d at\n1414–15 (finding no Sixth Amendment violation where ac-\ncused spent months in pretrial detention while government\nwitness recovered from heart surgery). Thomas has failed to\ndemonstrate any significant impairment in his defense as a\nresult of the delay. He speculates that, but for the delay,\n\fNos. 18-1356 & 18-1519 17\n\nThompson might not have decided to plead guilty and agree\nto testify against him. Perhaps, but we have explained that the\nfact that “the government was able to strengthen its case\nagainst [the defendant] during the delay … is not relevant to\nthe prejudice analysis.” United States v. Gearhart, 576 F.3d 459,\n463 (7th Cir. 2009). The delay here did not violate the Speedy\nTrial Clause of the Sixth Amendment.\n E. Jury Instructions\n Finally, Thomas argues that we should vacate his seven-\nyear sentence on Count Two for aiding and abetting the bran-\ndishing of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of vio-\nlence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) because the court erred\nin its jury instructions.5 Thomas contends that the jury was\nnot adequately instructed on the government’s burden to\nprove he had advance knowledge that Thompson would\nbrandish a firearm during the robbery. Thomas did not raise\nthis issue in the district court, so he faces an “uphill battle”\nunder plain-error review. See United States v. Wheeler, 540 F.3d\n683, 689 (7th Cir. 2008). Regardless, the jury instructions here\nwere not erroneous.\n Section 924(c) provides that “any person who, during and\nin relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime\n\n 5 A “crime of violence” is defined as “an offense that is a felony and—\n\n(A) has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical\nforce against the person or property of another, or (B) that by its nature,\ninvolves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or prop-\nerty of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.” 18\nU.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A) & (B). The Supreme Court has now invalidated sub-\nparagraph (B)—the residual clause—as unconstitutionally vague. United\nStates v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319, 2336 (2019). That decision does not affect\nthis case. The bank-robbery count is covered by subparagraph (A).\n\f18 Nos. 18-1356 & 18-1519\n\n… uses or carries a firearm,” is subject to a five-year statutory-\nminimum consecutive sentence. 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) &\n(D)(ii). The minimum consecutive sentence is increased to\nseven years “if the firearm is brandished.” § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii).\nUnder 18 U.S.C. § 2, a defendant who “aids, abets, counsels,\ncommands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable\nas a principal.” To apply the brandishing enhancement to\nThomas, the jury needed to find beyond a reasonable doubt\nthat Thomas knew in advance not only that Thompson would\nbe carrying a firearm but also that he would be brandishing\nit. United States v. Armour, 840 F.3d 904, 911 (7th Cir. 2016).\n The jury instructions here properly conveyed the govern-\nment’s burden to prove advance knowledge of brandishing to\ntrigger the seven-year statutory-minimum sentence.\nThomas’s main argument is that the district court did not re-\npeat the advance knowledge requirement in the instructions\non the special verdict form. But the special verdict form tied\nits question directly to the instructions for Count Two, which\nproperly included the advance knowledge requirement. A\nreasonable juror would not have understood this special ver-\ndict form to have dispensed with the advance knowledge re-\nquirement set forth clearly in the instructions for Count Two.\nThe point of the special verdict form was to make sure there\nwas unanimity on brandishing (as opposed to simply using\nor carrying). In no way did the form take away anything from\nthe instructions to Count Two. It merely added this additional\nsafeguard. The district court did not err in instructing the jury,\nlet alone plainly err.\n Thompson’s appeal (No. 18-1519) is DISMISSED. The dis-\ntrict court’s judgment in Thomas’s case (No. 18-1356) is\nAFFIRMED.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Julian THOMAS, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Thompson, Defendant-Appellant.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-08-01\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-1356\\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\\n v.\\n\\nJULIAN THOMAS,\\n Defendant-Appellant.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Western District of Wisconsin.\\n No. 16-CR-00044-wmc-1 — William M. Conley, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED MARCH 27, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 1, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\nNo. 18-1519\\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\\n\\n v.\\n\\nJAMES THOMPSON,\\n Defendant-Appellant.\\n ____________________\\n\\f2 Nos. 18-1356 & 18-1519\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Western District of Wisconsin.\\n No. 16-CR-00044-wmc-2 — William M. Conley, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n SUBMITTED MARCH 27, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 1, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before EASTERBROOK, KANNE, and HAMILTON, Circuit\\nJudges.\\n HAMILTON, Circuit Judge. A federal grand jury indicted de-\\nfendants Julian Thomas and James Thompson for robbing a\\nbank. Count One charged them with armed bank robbery in\\nviolation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d). Count Two charged\\nthem with using and carrying a firearm by brandishing it dur-\\ning and in relation to a crime of violence in violation of 18\\nU.S.C. § 924(c). A joint trial was scheduled but then delayed—\\nfirst at Thomas’s request, and then again because Thompson’s\\ncounsel faced an irreconcilable conflict of interest because of\\na newly discovered witness for the government. Shortly be-\\nfore the delayed trial, however, Thompson pleaded guilty and\\nagreed to testify for the government against Thomas. Thomas\\nwent to trial. The jury found him guilty on both counts and\\nalso returned a special verdict finding that Thomas aided\\nThompson’s brandishing of a firearm in the bank robbery.\\nThe district court sentenced Thomas to thirteen years in\\nprison for the bank robbery and a consecutive seven years (the\\nstatutory minimum) for aiding and abetting Thompson’s\\nbrandishing.\\n Both defendants have appealed, but Thompson’s attorney\\nhas filed an Anders brief explaining that he does not believe\\nThompson has any viable arguments on appeal. We agree and\\n\\fNos. 18-1356 & 18-1519 3\\n\\ndismiss that appeal, No. 18-1519.1 Thomas contends on appeal\\nthat certain evidence and argument at his trial were improper,\\nthat the delay between his indictment and his trial violated\\nthe Speedy Trial Clause of the Sixth Amendment, and that the\\njury instructions for 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) were erroneous.\\nThomas failed to raise all but one of these issues in the district\\ncourt. We affirm his convictions and sentence in No. 18-1356.\\nI. Factual & Procedural Background\\n Thomas and Thompson were convicted of robbing the\\nPeoples Community Bank in Plain, a small town in Sauk\\nCounty, Wisconsin. The evidence at Thomas’s trial showed\\nthat he had been planning a bank robbery for some time.\\nThompson so testified, and he explained that Thomas had\\ntold him they would enter the bank and Thompson would\\nmonitor the bank’s tellers while Thomas would enter the\\nvault with the bank’s manager. They would then escape with\\na white female getaway driver.2\\n\\n 1 Thompson does not challenge the validity of his guilty plea, which\\nallowed him to avoid a mandatory life sentence. He was sentenced to ten\\nyears for the bank robbery and a consecutive seven years for brandishing\\nthe firearm. Neither his counsel nor we see any arguable procedural or\\nsubstantive error in the sentence. Thompson received his counsel’s Anders\\nbrief and submitted no response identifying any issues he wished to pur-\\nsue on appeal, as he could have under Circuit Rule 51(b).\\n 2 Robert Lynn, who was in the Dane County Jail with Thomas in\\nMarch 2014, testified that Thomas had told him he planned to rob a bank\\nin Plain by “pistol-whip[ping] some old ladies” to “keep the first respond-\\ners busy.” James Britton testified that as early as 2012 or 2013, Thomas had\\ntalked of his plan to rob a bank in a small town. Britton also testified that\\nThomas had solicited his help to find an accomplice and that Britton had\\nconnected Thomas with Thompson and received some of the robbery pro-\\nceeds.\\n\\f4 Nos. 18-1356 & 18-1519\\n\\n That is what actually happened. On the day of the robbery,\\nThomas and Beth Manbauman (who was being paid in her-\\noin) picked Thompson up at a bus stop. Thomas provided\\nThompson with a mask and loaded handgun. Thompson put\\nthe gun in his pocket. As Thompson and Thomas waited in an\\nalley outside the bank, Thompson removed the handgun\\nfrom his pocket. The two then ran into the bank. Both wore\\nmasks. Thompson pointed the gun at the bank’s tellers.\\nThompson got two tellers to empty their cash drawers while\\nThomas forced the bank’s manager to open the vault. They\\nfled with approximately $60,000 in a car driven by Manbau-\\nman.\\n The government introduced evidence showing that on the\\nday of the robbery, both Thompson and Manbauman had\\ncommunicated with a particular telephone number. The num-\\nber was registered to “Frank Smith” in Irvine, California, but\\nThompson testified that the number was listed in his tele-\\nphone as belonging to “Juice,” which was Thomas’s nick-\\nname. Other witnesses testified that Thomas went by the nick-\\nname “Juice.” The government was aware that Thomas would\\ntry to impeach Thompson’s credibility, so the government\\ncalled Thomas’s probation officer, Michael Ellestad, who tes-\\ntified that he had used that same telephone number to contact\\nThomas while supervising him between November 2014 and\\nJune 2015.\\n The government also introduced evidence that Thomas\\nhad a friend register as the straw owner of a used Mercedes\\nBenz automobile that he bought days after the robbery. Before\\ntrial, the court ruled that the government could introduce a\\nrecording of a telephone call Thomas made while in pretrial\\ndetention in which he said the car was worth $30,000. The lead\\n\\fNos. 18-1356 & 18-1519 5\\n\\ncase detective testified on cross-examination by the defense\\nthat he had listened to that telephone call.\\n Thomas did not call any witnesses but introduced three\\nexhibits. The defense theory was that James Britton, not\\nThomas, committed the robbery with Thompson. During\\nclosing arguments, according to Thomas, the prosecutor mis-\\nled the jury by repeatedly using the word “you” while ex-\\nplaining the reasonable-person standard for “intimidation”\\nunder 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). Without an objection from Thomas,\\nthe district court corrected the government in front of the jury,\\nexplaining that the inquiry is an objective one.\\n The district court instructed the jury on the elements of the\\ntwo counts against Thomas. Only the instructions for the fire-\\narm charge in Count Two are at issue in this appeal. The court\\ninstructed that a verdict of guilty on an aiding-and-abetting\\ntheory of liability required proof beyond a reasonable doubt\\nthat Thomas “knew before the bank robbery that James\\nThompson was going to use, carry, or brandish a firearm dur-\\ning and in relation to the bank robbery charged in Count 1,”\\nand that “[o]nce [Thomas] knew this, he intentionally facili-\\ntated” it. The court instructed the jurors that a guilty verdict\\nwould require that they “agree on at least one of these three\\nways”—using, carrying, or brandishing—“that James\\nThompson employed the firearm during the bank robbery.”\\nThe court included a special verdict form asking whether\\nThomas aided Thompson’s brandishing of a firearm, explain-\\ning: “The reason you’re being asked this question is to make\\ncertain that even if you found someone guilty of Count 2 …\\nyou all agree brandishing occurred.” This finding was neces-\\nsary to apply the statutory enhancement for brandishing. See\\n18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). When the jury asked a question\\n\\f6 Nos. 18-1356 & 18-1519\\n\\nwhile deliberating, the court told them that “aid,” “aids,” or\\n“aiding” have their ordinary meanings.\\n The jury found Thomas guilty of both counts and an-\\nswered yes to the special verdict question on brandishing. The\\ndistrict court sentenced Thomas to thirteen years in prison for\\nthe bank robbery charge and a consecutive sentence of seven\\nyears (the statutory minimum) for aiding and abetting\\nThompson’s brandishing of the firearm.\\nII. Discussion\\n Thomas raises five issues on appeal. Three relate to evi-\\ndence and argument at trial: (A) the admission of Thomas’s\\nprobation officer’s testimony that he used a particular tele-\\nphone number to contact Thomas; (B) the admission of the\\ntelephone call Thomas made while in pretrial detention say-\\ning that he purchased a car worth $30,000 after the bank rob-\\nbery; and (C) the government’s use of the word “you” instead\\nof “reasonable person” in its closing argument to describe the\\ninquiry for intimidation. The other two issues are (D) the\\nSpeedy Trial Clause claim and (E) a challenge to the jury in-\\nstructions for accomplice liability for brandishing a firearm\\nduring and in relation to a crime of violence.\\n When a defendant has objected to the admission of evi-\\ndence, we review the district court’s decision for an abuse of\\ndiscretion. United States v. Quiroz, 874 F.3d 562, 569 (7th Cir.\\n2017); United States v. Gorman, 613 F.3d 711, 717 (7th Cir. 2010).\\nWe generally review the legal accuracy of jury instructions de\\nnovo, while deferring to a district court’s discretion in the spe-\\ncific phrasing. See United States v. McClellan, 794 F.3d 743, 753\\n(7th Cir. 2015). But when a defendant fails to object to a po-\\ntential evidentiary error or jury instruction in the district\\n\\fNos. 18-1356 & 18-1519 7\\n\\ncourt, these forfeited objections are reviewed only for plain\\nerror. See United States v. Ambrose, 668 F.3d 943, 963 (7th Cir.\\n2012) (evidence); United States v. Lawson, 810 F.3d 1032, 1040\\n(7th Cir. 2016) (jury instructions); Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b) (“A\\nplain error that affects substantial rights may be considered\\neven though it was not brought to the court’s attention.”). On\\nplain-error review, we may reverse if: (1) an error occurred,\\n(2) the error was plain, (3) it affected the defendant’s substan-\\ntial rights, and (4) it seriously affected the fairness, integrity,\\nor public reputation of the proceedings. United States v. Olano,\\n507 U.S. 725, 732–38 (1993); United States v. Pierson, 925 F.3d\\n913, 919 (7th Cir. 2019). In the district court, Thomas objected\\nonly to the admission of the telephone call discussing the\\n$30,000 car, so we review the district court’s decision to admit\\nit under an abuse of discretion standard. We review all other\\nissues only for plain error.\\n A. Testimony of the Probation Officer\\n The government called Thomas’s probation officer to tes-\\ntify that he used a specific telephone number to contact\\nThomas in supervising him on probation. The Federal Rules\\nof Evidence sharply restrict admission of an accused defend-\\nant’s prior convictions. E.g., Fed. R. Evid. 404, 609. The re-\\nstrictions are designed to ensure that a defendant is convicted\\nbased on the evidence relevant to the charged offenses, not a\\nsupposed propensity to commit crimes based on evidence of\\nprior convictions. See United States v. Gomez, 763 F.3d 845,\\n855–56 (7th Cir. 2014) (en banc); United States v. Beck, 625 F.3d\\n410, 416 (7th Cir. 2010). We have repeatedly cautioned trial\\ncourts to consider carefully the introduction of previous con-\\nvictions. See, e.g., Beck, 625 F.3d at 416, citing United States v.\\nTaylor, 522 F.3d 731, 732–33 (7th Cir. 2008).\\n\\f8 Nos. 18-1356 & 18-1519\\n\\n In this case, there was not an explicit statement that\\nThomas was previously convicted of a crime, but we assume\\njurors would understand that a person on probation has pre-\\nviously been convicted of a crime. The testimony of Officer\\nEllestad that he used the telephone number to contact Thomas\\ncould establish Thomas’s identity and connection to the tele-\\nphone number, which is a permissible purpose under Rule\\n404(b). Yet, in response to a proper objection, the district court\\nwould still need to weigh its probative value against the risk\\nof unfair prejudice under Rules 403 and 404(b). Taylor, 522\\nF.3d at 732–33.\\n Without an objection, the district court did not plainly err\\nin admitting Officer Ellestad’s testimony. The testimony was\\nrelevant to show that the telephone number belonged to\\nThomas and that he used the number to coordinate with\\nThompson and Manbauman. Thomas disputed his involve-\\nment in the planning and execution of the robbery. He also\\ndisputed Thompson’s testimony explaining that he commu-\\nnicated with Thomas using that telephone number. The cor-\\nroborating testimony of Thomas’s probation officer—includ-\\ning his job title, which established that he clearly knew how\\nto get in touch with Thomas—had significant probative value.\\n When a defendant objects to evidence that will put the fact\\nof a prior conviction before the jury, the trial judge should\\nconsider whether other evidence might serve the same pur-\\npose and should weigh probative value against the risk of un-\\nfair prejudice. See United States v. Loughry, 660 F.3d 965, 974\\n(7th Cir. 2011) (“availability of other means of proof is an ap-\\npropriate factor to consider in determining the relevance of an\\nitem of evidence”), citing Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S.\\n172, 182–84 (1997). If Thomas had been willing to stipulate\\n\\fNos. 18-1356 & 18-1519 9\\n\\nthat the telephone number was his, there would have been no\\nreason to introduce his probation officer’s testimony. But\\nThomas disputed whether the number belonged to him. That\\nwas his right, of course, but the government was entitled to\\noffer evidence to corroborate Thompson’s testimony tying\\nThomas to the telephone number.\\n Also, the risk of unfair prejudice here was reduced. The\\njury was already aware through other, proper evidence that\\nThomas had a criminal history. The defense itself referred to\\nThomas’s criminal history multiple times. The defense noted\\nThomas’s prior incarceration with government witness Rob-\\nert Lynn in its opening statement. See Trial Tr. I-120 (“You’ll\\nalso hear that Detective Sabol finds out a couple months after\\nthe robbery that Mr. Thomas was in jail with a guy named\\nRobert Lynn. … They were in jail together the spring be-\\nfore.”). Thomas did not object to the introduction of Lynn’s\\ntestimony later in the trial. The defense’s opening statement\\nalso acknowledged:\\n During this trial you will learn that Mr. Thomas\\n is not a squeaky clean guy. We are not going to\\n try to pretend he’s something he’s not. He hangs\\n out with unsavory characters. Sometimes he\\n sells drugs to get by. Sometimes he steals credit\\n cards, forgery, makes his money that way, stuff\\n like that.\\nIn closing argument, the defense reiterated:\\n I know that Mr. Thomas is not a great guy. …\\n That’s not what makes him guilty of robbery.\\n Because those other bad acts, that evidence that,\\n like, “Hey, man, you’re with some unsavory\\n\\f10 Nos. 18-1356 & 18-1519\\n\\n folks. You’re a heroin dealer. You know, youʹre\\n the kind of guy that steals iPads and does credit\\n card fraud. You are a despicable human be-\\n ing”—if the charge was you’re a despicable hu-\\n man being, go for it, guilty, guilty, but it’s not.\\n Given these references from the defense, Officer Ellestad’s\\nreference to being Thomas’s probation officer was not un-\\nfairly prejudicial and did not outweigh the probative value of\\nhis testimony. See Fed. R. Evid. 403. Thomas’s criminal past\\n“was already before the jury,” and the likelihood that this as-\\npect of Officer Ellestad’s testimony “had any effect on the jury\\nis negligible.” United States v. Courtright, 632 F.3d 363, 370 (7th\\nCir. 2011). We doubt there was any error, and there certainly\\nwas no plain error, in admitting this testimony.\\n B. The $30,000 Car Telephone Call\\n Before trial, the government informed the court that it\\nwould offer a recording of a telephone call Thomas made\\nwhile in pretrial detention in which he said that a Mercedes\\nBenz he bought shortly after the robbery was worth $30,000.\\nThomas objected to this evidence, so we review the court’s\\ndecision to admit it for an abuse of discretion. United States v.\\nCunningham, 462 F.3d 708, 712 (7th Cir. 2006). While this is not\\nthe plain-error standard, this standard is still deferential.\\nUnited States v. Ozuna, 561 F.3d 728, 738 (7th Cir. 2009).\\n This issue has become a bit muddled factually. Shortly be-\\nfore oral argument on appeal, the government filed a letter\\nexplaining that the portion of this telephone call referring to\\nthe supposed $30,000 value of the car was “unintentionally\\ndeleted … from the recordings presented to the jury.” The ju-\\nrors heard only the portions of the recording where Thomas\\n\\fNos. 18-1356 & 18-1519 11\\n\\ndescribed the Mercedes as a “luxury car” that should run on\\npremium gas. In its opening statement, however, the govern-\\nment told the jury that it would hear about “jail phone calls”\\nin which Thomas said that the Mercedes was “all paid for and\\nthat it cost him $30,000.” Later in the trial, the defense on\\ncross-examination asked the lead case detective: “You heard\\nin a telephone call that Mr. Thomas said the car was worth\\n$30,000, correct?” The detective answered “Yes.” Since the\\nchallenged $30,000 statement was never actually played, the\\njury heard about it only in the government’s opening and the\\ndefense’s cross-examination of the detective. These discrep-\\nancies were not raised in the district court. We believe the\\nmost prudent way to proceed in this appeal is to review the\\ndistrict court’s ruling to admit the $30,000 statement as if the\\nstatement had been included in the recording played for the\\njury as part of the evidence.\\n The district court did not abuse its discretion in deciding\\nto admit this evidence. Thomas argues that the admission of\\nthis recording was cumulative because other evidence al-\\nready indicated that he bought the Mercedes Benz shortly af-\\nter the bank robbery. But Thomas would not stipulate to the\\nvalue of the car being $30,000, and at trial he asked questions\\nof witnesses suggesting, and argued in closing, that the value\\nwas much less.3 The government wanted to introduce this\\nstatement because $30,000 was roughly half of the proceeds of\\nthe bank robbery. The value of the car was disputed and\\nsomewhat relevant, and Thomas’s statement was not\\n\\n 3 While questioning the detective, Thomas noted that the car had\\n149,800 miles on it and “had been shot up”—suggesting that “a car that’s\\nbeen shot by a gun tends to depreciate in value” and would not be worth\\n$30,000. We express no opinion on the actual value of the car.\\n\\f12 Nos. 18-1356 & 18-1519\\n\\ncumulative because it was the only evidence of the supposed\\n$30,000 value of the car.\\n Thomas also argues that the reference to the “jail phone\\ncall” was unfairly prejudicial, but for reasons similar to those\\ndiscussed above regarding his probation officer, the reference\\nto his pretrial detention would have added little if anything\\nto what the jury already knew about him. We have explained\\nthat a defendant “may have been somewhat prejudiced” by\\nthe admission of recordings of telephone calls he made while\\nawaiting trial, but “the occasional reference to the fact that\\n[the defendant] had at some point been in jail” while awaiting\\ntrial is unlikely “to undermine the presumption of innocence\\nand the defendant’s right to a fair trial.” United States v. John-\\nson, 624 F.3d 815, 821–22 (7th Cir. 2010).\\n As with Officer Ellestad’s testimony, discussed above, if\\nThomas had stipulated to the supposed $30,000 value of the\\ncar, the government would not have had a good reason to in-\\ntroduce this evidence. See Loughry, 660 F.3d at 974. The dis-\\ntrict court gave Thomas the opportunity to so stipulate, but he\\nrefused—again, as he was perfectly entitled to. But without a\\nstipulation, this recording was the government’s only evi-\\ndence as to the supposed $30,000 value of the car. The value\\nof the car was disputed, and the jail telephone call was neither\\ncumulative nor unfairly prejudicial. The district court did not\\nabuse its discretion by deciding to allow evidence of\\nThomas’s statement that the Mercedes was worth $30,000.\\n C. “You” in the Government’s Closing Argument\\n For Count I—the bank-robbery offense—the government\\nwas required to prove that the money was taken from the\\nbank “by force and violence, or by intimidation.” 18 U.S.C.\\n\\fNos. 18-1356 & 18-1519 13\\n\\n§ 2113(a). “Intimidation exists when a bank robber’s words\\nand actions would cause an ordinary person to feel threat-\\nened, by giving rise to a reasonable fear that resistance or de-\\nfiance will be met with force.” United States v. Gordon, 642 F.3d\\n596, 598 (7th Cir. 2011). The district court instructed the jury\\nto that effect: “the term ‘intimidation’ means to say or do\\nsomething that would make a reasonable person feel threat-\\nened under the circumstances.”\\n In its closing argument, the government used language\\ndescribing this standard sometimes as objective and some-\\ntimes as subjective—referring sometimes to a “reasonable\\nperson” but also to “you,” arguably asking the jurors to think\\nabout how they themselves would have felt. The district court\\nfirmly corrected the prosecutor in front of the jury: “This is\\nthe second time you violated the golden rule. It’s not for you\\nto decide what you personally would feel. It is what a reason-\\nable person would feel, and I don’t want you to do it again.”\\nThe government apologized and explained to the jury: “So the\\njudge is right. It’s not what—it’s the reasonable person stand-\\nard, and you have to do the reasonable person standard.”\\n Even if the prosecutor’s language may have been im-\\nproper, the court immediately corrected it. Thomas raised no\\nobjection, and he was not deprived of a fair trial. See United\\nStates v. Common, 818 F.3d 323, 331 (7th Cir. 2016) (court must\\nfirst determine “whether the remarks by the prosecutor were\\nimproper when viewed in isolation,” and if so, the court will\\nthen “evaluate them in the context of the entire record and\\ndetermine whether defendant was deprived of a fair trial.”)\\n(citation and internal quotation marks omitted). We have ex-\\nplained: “As a general matter, improper comments during\\nclosing argument rarely rise to the level of reversible error,\\n\\f14 Nos. 18-1356 & 18-1519\\n\\nand considerable discretion is entrusted to the district court\\nto supervise the arguments of counsel.” United States v. Wil-\\nson, 985 F.2d 348, 353 (7th Cir. 1993) (citation and internal quo-\\ntation marks omitted); see also United States v. Berg, 640 F.3d\\n239, 253 (7th Cir. 2011).\\n There was no abuse of discretion here, let alone a plain er-\\nror. Lawyers sometimes are not as precise as they should be\\nwhen giving extemporaneous closing arguments. Even with-\\nout an objection, trial judges have the power to intervene if\\nthey believe that language has strayed too far from the\\nstraight and narrow, as the judge did here. To determine the\\neffect of prosecutorial comments on the fairness of the trial,\\nwe consider: “(1) the nature and seriousness of the alleged\\nmisconduct; (2) whether the defense invited the prosecutor’s\\nstatements; (3) whether the jury instructions adequately ad-\\ndressed the matter; (4) whether the defense had an oppor-\\ntunity to respond to the improper remarks; and (5) the weight\\nof the evidence against the defendant.” United States v. Klemis,\\n859 F.3d 436, 442 (7th Cir. 2017). This minor misstatement of\\nthe standard, which Judge Conley corrected immediately, did\\nnot deprive Thomas of his right to a fair trial. The jury instruc-\\ntions used the proper standard, and, given the evidence that\\nThompson brandished a gun to terrify the robbery victims,\\nnuances about the standards for intimidation were unlikely to\\nhave affected the verdict.\\n D. Speedy Trial\\n The Sixth Amendment guarantees the accused “the right\\nto a speedy and public trial.” In determining whether a pre-\\ntrial delay violates the Speedy Trial Clause, we consider: “(1)\\nthe length of the delay, (2) the reason for the delay, (3) the de-\\nfendant’s assertion of his speedy trial right, and (4) the\\n\\fNos. 18-1356 & 18-1519 15\\n\\nprejudice to the defendant caused by the delay.” United States\\nv. Koller, 956 F.2d 1408, 1413 (7th Cir. 1992), citing Barker v.\\nWingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530 (1972). Thomas claims that he was\\ndenied this right because his trial occurred almost eighteen\\nmonths after his indictment. He contends that his convictions\\nshould therefore be vacated. Thomas did not raise this consti-\\ntutional argument in the district court, so again we review\\nonly for plain error. See, e.g., United States v. O’Connor, 656\\nF.3d 630, 643 (7th Cir. 2011).4\\n “Delays of more than one year are considered presump-\\ntively prejudicial,” but the presumption may be rebutted. Id.\\nThe delays here were for legitimate reasons, and Thomas is\\nhard-pressed to point us to any actual prejudice he suffered.\\nThomas concedes that 281 days of the delay are not attributa-\\nble to the government and are not an issue. This period in-\\ncludes the 161 days from his indictment until Thomas himself\\nfiled an unopposed motion to move the trial date. It also in-\\ncludes the next 120 days, from Thomas’s motion to move the\\ntrial date until the conflict of interest arose with Thompson’s\\ncounsel. The period at issue is the following 242 days, from\\nthe date of the hearing on the conflict, when the district court\\ndenied Thomas’s request to keep his February 2017 trial date,\\nuntil the date of his trial (October 16, 2017). Thomas seeks to\\nattribute these 242 days of delay to the government.\\n This eight-month delay was unfortunate but justified. An\\nissue arose when the government sought to question a wit-\\nness who was also represented by Thompson’s counsel, cre-\\nating an irreconcilable conflict of interest. The district court\\n\\n\\n 4\\n Thomas objected to postponing the trial, but he did not raise a Sixth\\nAmendment challenge.\\n\\f16 Nos. 18-1356 & 18-1519\\n\\naccepted the government’s judgment that the prospective wit-\\nness’s testimony was important. The postponement was nec-\\nessary for Thompson to obtain new counsel, and the court\\nviewed the delay as “nobody’s fault,” but rather “one of those\\nirreconcilable conflicts” that required a continuance. We\\nagree. While unfortunate, this sort of delay sometimes just\\nhappens with multiple defendants.\\n Thomas objected to the continuance and sought a trial sep-\\narate from Thompson without further delay. That would have\\nbeen a permissible response to the problem, but the govern-\\nment responded with a legitimate objection of its own, saying\\nthat it could not “put the [bank] tellers through two trials,”\\ngiven their psychological trauma. The district court “easily”\\ndetermined that given the “nature of the government’s wit-\\nnesses,” it would not put them through two trials. The gov-\\nernment also explained that the delay was not ideal for the\\ngovernment itself because the bank-teller eyewitnesses, who\\nhad been traumatized by the robbery, were hoping to get the\\ntrial over with. These were all legitimate considerations in de-\\nciding how to solve an unexpected problem with no ideal so-\\nlution.\\n We recognize that the delay meant that Thomas spent an\\nadditional eight months in pretrial detention. But the Su-\\npreme Court in Barker v. Wingo found that a total of ten\\nmonths of detention before trial did not rise to the level of se-\\nrious prejudice. 407 U.S. at 530 & 534; see Koller, 956 F.2d at\\n1414–15 (finding no Sixth Amendment violation where ac-\\ncused spent months in pretrial detention while government\\nwitness recovered from heart surgery). Thomas has failed to\\ndemonstrate any significant impairment in his defense as a\\nresult of the delay. He speculates that, but for the delay,\\n\\fNos. 18-1356 & 18-1519 17\\n\\nThompson might not have decided to plead guilty and agree\\nto testify against him. Perhaps, but we have explained that the\\nfact that “the government was able to strengthen its case\\nagainst [the defendant] during the delay … is not relevant to\\nthe prejudice analysis.” United States v. Gearhart, 576 F.3d 459,\\n463 (7th Cir. 2009). The delay here did not violate the Speedy\\nTrial Clause of the Sixth Amendment.\\n E. Jury Instructions\\n Finally, Thomas argues that we should vacate his seven-\\nyear sentence on Count Two for aiding and abetting the bran-\\ndishing of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of vio-\\nlence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) because the court erred\\nin its jury instructions.5 Thomas contends that the jury was\\nnot adequately instructed on the government’s burden to\\nprove he had advance knowledge that Thompson would\\nbrandish a firearm during the robbery. Thomas did not raise\\nthis issue in the district court, so he faces an “uphill battle”\\nunder plain-error review. See United States v. Wheeler, 540 F.3d\\n683, 689 (7th Cir. 2008). Regardless, the jury instructions here\\nwere not erroneous.\\n Section 924(c) provides that “any person who, during and\\nin relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime\\n\\n 5 A “crime of violence” is defined as “an offense that is a felony and—\\n\\n(A) has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical\\nforce against the person or property of another, or (B) that by its nature,\\ninvolves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or prop-\\nerty of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.” 18\\nU.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A) & (B). The Supreme Court has now invalidated sub-\\nparagraph (B)—the residual clause—as unconstitutionally vague. United\\nStates v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319, 2336 (2019). That decision does not affect\\nthis case. The bank-robbery count is covered by subparagraph (A).\\n\\f18 Nos. 18-1356 & 18-1519\\n\\n… uses or carries a firearm,” is subject to a five-year statutory-\\nminimum consecutive sentence. 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) &\\n(D)(ii). The minimum consecutive sentence is increased to\\nseven years “if the firearm is brandished.” § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii).\\nUnder 18 U.S.C. § 2, a defendant who “aids, abets, counsels,\\ncommands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable\\nas a principal.” To apply the brandishing enhancement to\\nThomas, the jury needed to find beyond a reasonable doubt\\nthat Thomas knew in advance not only that Thompson would\\nbe carrying a firearm but also that he would be brandishing\\nit. United States v. Armour, 840 F.3d 904, 911 (7th Cir. 2016).\\n The jury instructions here properly conveyed the govern-\\nment’s burden to prove advance knowledge of brandishing to\\ntrigger the seven-year statutory-minimum sentence.\\nThomas’s main argument is that the district court did not re-\\npeat the advance knowledge requirement in the instructions\\non the special verdict form. But the special verdict form tied\\nits question directly to the instructions for Count Two, which\\nproperly included the advance knowledge requirement. A\\nreasonable juror would not have understood this special ver-\\ndict form to have dispensed with the advance knowledge re-\\nquirement set forth clearly in the instructions for Count Two.\\nThe point of the special verdict form was to make sure there\\nwas unanimity on brandishing (as opposed to simply using\\nor carrying). In no way did the form take away anything from\\nthe instructions to Count Two. It merely added this additional\\nsafeguard. The district court did not err in instructing the jury,\\nlet alone plainly err.\\n Thompson’s appeal (No. 18-1519) is DISMISSED. The dis-\\ntrict court’s judgment in Thomas’s case (No. 18-1356) is\\nAFFIRMED.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3767,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4645028,"string":"4,645,028"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Brian Knutson v. Village of Lakemoor"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-08-01"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-3729"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before MANION, SYKES, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"Daniel Anthony Manion\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-3729\\nBRIAN KNUTSON, et al.,\\n Plaintiffs-Appellants,\\n v.\\n\\nVILLAGE OF LAKEMOOR,\\n Defendant-Appellee.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 1:18-cv-01804 — Marvin E. Aspen, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED APRIL 17, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 1, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before MANION, SYKES, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\\n MANION, Circuit Judge. This class action suit challenges the\\nred light camera program of the Village of Lakemoor, Illinois.\\nThe plaintiffs received violation notices from Lakemoor that\\nthey claim are invalid because the notices lack a proper mu-\\nnicipal code citation. They also claim Lakemoor denied them\\ndue process by limiting the defenses that can be asserted be-\\nfore a hearing officer to contest a violation. The district court\\ndismissed the case for failure to state a claim. We affirm.\\n\\f2 No. 18-3729\\n\\n I. Background\\n Describing the plaintiffs’ claims requires reading several\\nprovisions of Lakemoor’s Municipal Code of Ordinances (the\\n“Code”) together. First, Chapter 1 of the Code outlines the\\nCode’s numbering system: “Each section number of this code\\nshall consist of two component parts separated by a period,\\nthe figure before the period referring to the chapter number\\nand the figure after the period referring to the section within\\nthe chapter.” Lakemoor Mun. Code § 1.01(C).\\n Chapter 41-1/21 of the Code covers traffic violations. It in-\\ncorporates by reference the Illinois Vehicle Code (IVC), and\\nstates “[t]he section numbers used in the [IVC] shall be iden-\\ntical to those section numbers in the Lakemoor Vehicle Code.\\nTherefore, an ordinance violation shall be cited as ‘Chapter\\n41-1/2,’ followed by the corresponding IVC section number.”\\nId. § 41-1/2.01.\\n In 2012, Lakemoor enacted an ordinance titled\\n“AUTOMATED TRAFFIC LAW ENFORCEMENT\\nPROGRAM,” and codified it as Section 14 of Chapter 41-1/2.\\nId. § 41-1/2.14. Section 14 authorizes a system of red light cam-\\neras located at certain intersections to detect and record red\\nlight violations. Id. It states “[i]t shall be a violation of this sec-\\ntion for anyone to operate a vehicle in disregard of a traffic\\ncontrol device or to turn right on a red light where it is posted\\n‘No Turn on Red,’” id. § 41-1/2.14(B), but it also incorporates\\nby reference the IVC’s prohibition of the same conduct, id.\\n§ 41-1/2.14(C)(1), (C)(4) (citing IVC § 11-306).\\n\\n\\n\\n 1\\n This chapter is referred to as Chapter 41-1/2 because it falls between\\nChapters 41 and 42.\\n\\fNo. 18-3729 3\\n\\n When a red light camera captures a vehicle committing a\\nred light violation, Section 14 requires a written violation no-\\ntice to be issued to the registered owner of the vehicle. Id. § 41-\\n1/2.14(C)(4). Section 14 lists the information that the notice\\n“shall include,” such as the name and address of the regis-\\ntered owner of the vehicle, the location, date, and time of the\\nviolation, and, importantly for this appeal, “[t]he violation\\ncharged, with specific reference to that section of the Village\\nof Lakemoor Municipal Code of Ordinances allegedly vio-\\nlated.” Id. § 41-1/2.14(C)(4)(c). The violation notice constitutes\\nprima facie evidence of a violation, which can be rebutted by\\nseveral enumerated defenses. Id. § 41-1/2.14(C)(6). A recipient\\nof a violation notice may request adjudication before a hear-\\ning officer, where he may present only the defenses listed in\\nSection 14(C)(6). The list of defenses does not include chal-\\nlenges to the violation notice’s compliance with Section 14’s\\nrequirements. Id.\\n In its entirety, Section 14 comprises approximately 42 sub-\\nsections and sub-subsections and takes up roughly four full\\npages. At the end of Section 14 is the following parenthetical:\\n“(Ord. 12-O-03, passed 1-26-2012),” referencing the ordinance\\nnumber as it was passed and its date of passage. Lakemoor’s\\nonline ordinance compilation includes a cross-reference chart\\nthat links Ord. No. 12-O-03 to Section 14.2\\n\\n\\n 2 See Village of Lakemoor, Illinois Code of Ordinances, AM. LEGAL PUBL’G\\nCORP., http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Illinois/lakemoor_il/vil\\nlageoflakemoorillinoiscodeofordinance?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$\\nvid=amlegal:lakemoor_il (last visited Aug. 1, 2019). From this page, the\\nentire municipal code is accessible through a navigation panel on the left\\nside of the screen, arranged by chapters and sections. At the very bottom\\n\\f4 No. 18-3729\\n\\n Each plaintiff received at least one such notice of violation.\\nNext to the label “Code Violation and Description,” the no-\\ntices include simply the notation “12-O-03.” However, the no-\\ntices also include photographs of the violation occurrence and\\nstate these photographs depict “a violation of a red light sig-\\nnal and/or law pertaining to ‘Right Turn on Red.’” The notices\\nfurther provide a complete list of defenses and grounds for\\ncontesting the violation as well as instructions for contesting\\nthe violation by mail or in person.\\n All but one of the named plaintiffs chose to pay the $100\\nfine for each violation,3 and none requested a hearing. They\\nthen filed suit in federal court, seeking to certify three classes:\\n(1) all individuals who received a violation notice from Lake-\\nmoor, (2) those who paid the fine, and (3) those who have not\\npaid the fine. The plaintiffs alleged Lakemoor deprived them\\nof due process under color of state law and sought declaratory\\n\\n\\nof this navigation panel is a link labelled “REFERENCES TO\\nORDINANCES” within the expandable folder “PARALLEL\\nREFERENCES.” That page includes a chart of all ordinance numbers ar-\\nranged in numerical order. For each ordinance number, the chart lists the\\ndate on which it was adopted and provides a direct link to the code chap-\\nter(s) and section(s) included in that ordinance. For Ordinance No. 12-O-\\n03, the provided link leads directly to Section 14, although we note the\\nhyperlink text is mislabeled as “§ 4-1/2.14”. Searching for “12-O-03” in the\\npage’s search bar does not lead one to the proper chapter, section, or the\\nordinance cross-reference chart.\\n 3 One outlier plaintiff, Heather Bendl, received multiple violation no-\\ntices but did not voluntarily pay the attached fines. Her state income tax\\nreturn was garnished for the amount due in February 2018, but she later\\nreceived another violation notice in April 2018. The fine for that violation\\nremained unpaid at the time of the filing of the amended complaint.\\n\\fNo. 18-3729 5\\n\\njudgment. They argued the violation notices were void ab in-\\nitio because the notation “12-O-03” does not suffice as a “spe-\\ncific reference to that section of the [Code] allegedly violated.”\\nInstead, reading Lakemoor Municipal Code §§ 1.01, 41-1/2.01,\\nand 41-1/2.14(C)(4)(c) together, they contended the violation\\nnotices must contain a citation to Chapter 41-1/2 of the Code\\nalong with the section number of the IVC dealing with red\\nlight violations (IVC § 11-306(c)). Therefore, the plaintiffs as-\\nserted the proper citation is “Lakemoor Mun. Code § 41-\\n1/2.11-306(c).” They claimed Lakemoor deprived them of due\\nprocess by not including a challenge to the notice’s validity as\\nan available defense under Section 14(C)(6). In addition to\\ntheir due process claim, the plaintiffs asserted a state law un-\\njust enrichment claim based on the same allegations.4\\n The district court held the notices were valid because Sec-\\ntion 14 incorporates by reference IVC § 11-306(c) and “12-O-\\n03” is a parallel session law citation to Section 14 that satisfies\\nthe “specific reference” requirement. Moreover, the district\\n\\n\\n 4 The plaintiffs also asserted a due process claim under the Illinois\\nConstitution and a claim for injunctive relief as a separate count. The\\nplaintiffs abandoned the state constitutional claim at the district court.\\nWith respect to injunctive relief, that is a remedy, not a cause of action,\\nand thus should not be pleaded as a separate count. See Guardians Ass’n v.\\nCivil Serv. Com’n, 463 U.S. 582, 595 (1983) (“Whether a litigant has a cause\\nof action ‘is analytically distinct and prior to the question of what relief, if\\nany, a litigant may be entitled to receive.”); CustomGuide v. CareerBuilder,\\nLLC, 813 F. Supp. 2d 990, 1002 (N.D. Ill. 2011) (“An injunction ‘is an equi-\\ntable remedy, not a separate cause of action.’”). The district court properly\\ndismissed that count on that basis. Furthermore, because we hold the\\nplaintiffs failed to state a claim for violation of due process or unjust en-\\nrichment, they are not entitled to injunctive relief.\\n\\f6 No. 18-3729\\n\\ncourt held the plaintiffs were not deprived of due process by\\nthe limitation of defenses because the defense they sought to\\nassert was not viable. The district court dismissed the case.\\nThe plaintiffs appeal.\\n II. Analysis\\n The plaintiffs assert a due process claim under the Four-\\nteenth Amendment and a state law unjust enrichment claim\\nand seek declaratory judgment.5 We review the district court’s\\ndismissal de novo. Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1081\\n(7th Cir. 2008). “We may affirm a district court’s dismissal or-\\nder on any basis supported by the record.” Craig v. Rich Tp.\\nHigh Sch. Dist. 227, 736 F.3d 1110, 1118 (7th Cir. 2013).\\n A. Due Process Claim\\n The plaintiffs do not invoke the “substantive” due process\\ndoctrine. Instead, their claim asserts only that they were not\\nafforded the minimum procedural protections guaranteed by\\nthe Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.\\n In analyzing a procedural due process claim, we follow a\\ntwo-step process. First, we determine if the plaintiff has been\\ndeprived of a liberty or property interest. Second, we deter-\\nmine if the plaintiff was provided constitutionally sufficient\\nprocess. Grant v. Trs. of Ind. Univ., 870 F.3d 562, 571 (7th Cir.\\n2017). Lakemoor does not dispute the plaintiffs have a pro-\\ntected property interest in the $100 they were fined for each\\nred light violation. Thus, the only question is what—or how\\nmuch—process was due for that deprivation.\\n\\n\\n\\n 5 We have supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim pursuant\\n\\nto 28 U.S.C. § 1367.\\n\\fNo. 18-3729 7\\n\\n “The cornerstone of due process is notice and the oppor-\\ntunity to be heard ‘at a meaningful time and in a meaningful\\nmanner.’” Id. (quoting Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333\\n(1976)). In this case, the plaintiffs received both. They received\\na written notice of each violation, which included a descrip-\\ntion and photograph of the violation as well as the time, date,\\nand location where it occurred. They also had an opportunity\\nto contest the violation before a hearing officer, and the viola-\\ntion notices explained in detail how to request such a hearing.\\nDespite this, the plaintiffs argue they were denied a meaning-\\nful opportunity for hearing because Section 14 limits the de-\\nfenses they can raise before the hearing officer. The limited\\ndefenses do not include challenging the violation notice as\\nvoid for failure to comply with Section 14’s requirements.\\nThis argument is unavailing.\\n The requirements of due process are not rigid; rather, due\\nprocess “is flexible and requires only ‘such procedural protec-\\ntions as the particular situation demands.’” Riano v. McDon-\\nald, 833 F.3d 830, 834 (7th Cir. 2016) (quoting Ringquist v.\\nHampton, 582 F.2d 1138, 1140 (7th Cir. 1978)). Less process is\\ndue where less is at stake. Van Harken v. City of Chicago, 103\\nF.3d 1346, 1353 (7th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, we consider three\\nfactors when determining what process is due before the gov-\\nernment effects a deprivation: (1) the nature of the private in-\\nterest at stake, (2) the risk of erroneous deprivation through\\nthe procedures used, and (3) the governmental interest.\\nMathews, 424 U.S. at 334–35.\\n First, the private interest at stake in this case—a $100\\nfine—is relatively small. See Van Harken, 103 F.3d at 1353 (find-\\ning less process was due where maximum possible penalty\\nfor parking violation was “only $100”). We do not pretend a\\n\\f8 No. 18-3729\\n\\n$100 fine is of no consequence. However, in the grand scheme\\nof deprivations the government can effect, including impris-\\nonment or the seizure of highly valuable property, a $100 fine\\nis among the less serious sort. Accordingly, this factor sug-\\ngests less process was required here.\\n Second, Lakemoor’s limitation of defenses does not pre-\\nsent a risk of erroneous deprivation. Lakemoor allows alleged\\nviolators to contest the violation on various grounds that, if\\ntrue, would refute or alleviate culpability. For example, Sec-\\ntion 14 allows a recipient of a violation notice to assert, inter\\nalia, the following arguments as defenses: the vehicle was\\nowned by or leased to another individual at the time of the\\nviolation; the driver passed through the red light in order to\\nyield to an emergency vehicle; the vehicle cannot be ade-\\nquately identified in the photo; or the driver was already is-\\nsued a citation for the same violation. Lakemoor Mun. Code\\n§ 41-1/2.14(C)(6). By contrast, the plaintiffs’ desired defense\\n(namely, the violation notice did not contain a proper citation\\nto the Code section allegedly violated) has no bearing on cul-\\npability. Preventing alleged violators from asserting this tech-\\nnicality as a defense does not present a risk of erroneous dep-\\nrivation. Thus, this factor weighs in favor of finding the pro-\\ncess provided was constitutionally sufficient.\\n Finally, limiting the universe of possible defenses furthers\\nthe government’s interest in administrative efficiency. In\\nMathews, the Supreme Court noted as relevant the “fiscal and\\nadministrative burdens that the additional or substitute pro-\\ncedural requirement would entail.” 424 U.S. at 335; see also\\nCont’l Training Servs., Inc. v. Cavazos, 893 F.2d 877, 893 (7th Cir.\\n1990) (stating the “conservation of resources and administra-\\ntive efficiency” are “unquestionably” governmental\\n\\fNo. 18-3729 9\\n\\ninterests). Requiring the hearing officer to entertain any de-\\nfenses the alleged violator desires to raise, even those with no\\nbearing on culpability, would create a greater administrative\\nburden and cost for Lakemoor. This factor supports Lake-\\nmoor’s choice to limit the possible defenses to those that re-\\nfute or alleviate culpability.\\n We have previously held a plaintiff is not deprived of a\\nmeaningful opportunity to be heard simply because the de-\\nfense he wishes to assert is not available to him at the pro-\\nvided hearing. Cochran v. Ill. State Toll Highway Auth., 828 F.3d\\n597, 601 (7th Cir. 2016). In Cochran, the plaintiff received notice\\nof a toll violation and was entitled to request a hearing. How-\\never, because the toll violation was a strict liability offense, the\\nplaintiff was prevented from presenting a knowledge defense\\nat the hearing. He argued that this limitation of his defenses\\nrendered the opportunity for hearing meaningless, but we\\ndisagreed. “Although the knowledge defense was not availa-\\nble, other defenses were. Thus, plaintiff was not precluded\\nfrom presenting any defense, and the hearing was not mean-\\ningless.” Id.\\n Similarly, the fact that the plaintiffs in this case could not\\nassert a defense based on the violation notice’s lack of a Code\\ncitation does not mean that the hearing—at which they could\\nhave raised several other defenses—would have been mean-\\ningless. The process that the plaintiffs received was constitu-\\ntionally sufficient, and they have, therefore, failed to state a\\nfederal due process claim.\\n B. Unjust Enrichment Claim\\n The plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim is based on the\\nsame underlying allegations as the due process claim. They\\n\\f10 No. 18-3729\\n\\nassert Lakemoor has been unjustly enriched by receiving pay-\\nment of fines to which it was not entitled.\\n The plaintiffs argue the violation notices were void ab ini-\\ntio because they did not include a proper citation to “that sec-\\ntion of the [Code] allegedly violated” as required by Section\\n14. See Lakemoor Mun. Code § 41-1/2.14(C)(4)(c). This argu-\\nment fails because there is no indication that the “specific ref-\\nerence” requirement was intended to be read as a mandatory\\nprovision rather than a directory one.\\n “A mandatory provision and a directory provision are\\nboth couched in obligatory language, but they differ in that\\nnoncompliance with a mandatory provision vitiates the gov-\\nernmental action, whereas noncompliance with a directory\\nprovision has no such effect.” In re M.I., 2011 IL App (1st)\\n100865, ¶ 47, 964 N.E.2d 72, 83. Under Illinois law, a proce-\\ndural command in a statute is presumed to be directory rather\\nthan mandatory. People v. Geiler, 2016 IL 119095, ¶ 18, 57\\nN.E.3d 1221, 1224–25. That presumption can be overcome\\nonly if (1) the statute uses negative language to prohibit fur-\\nther action in the event of noncompliance, or (2) the statute is\\ndesigned to protect a right that would generally be injured if\\nthe provision is read as directory. Id.\\n Although Section 14 states a violation notice “shall in-\\nclude” a “specific reference” to the Code section allegedly vi-\\nolated, we see no basis for overturning the presumption that\\nthis requirement is directory rather than mandatory. First,\\nSection 14 contains no negative language prohibiting Lake-\\nmoor from taking further action in the event of noncompli-\\nance.\\n\\fNo. 18-3729 11\\n\\n Second, although the plaintiffs argue their right to be fully\\ninformed of an alleged violation would be injured by a direc-\\ntory reading, this is simply not the case. The plaintiffs suffered\\nno failure of notice caused by the “12-O-03” notation. The no-\\ntice of violation each plaintiff received includes multiple pho-\\ntographs of each plaintiffs’ registered vehicle in the act of en-\\ntering an intersection on a red light, with the license plate vis-\\nible, and describes the photographs as evidencing “a violation\\nof a red light signal and/or law pertaining to ‘Right Turn on\\nRed.’” Each notice also includes the time, date, and location of\\nthe violation. Further, each notice provides detailed infor-\\nmation about the procedures for contesting the violation, the\\ndate by which the fine must be paid or the violation contested,\\nand a full list of possible defenses derived from Section 14.\\n Everything the plaintiffs needed to know to contest the vi-\\nolation was fully and clearly explained in the notice of viola-\\ntion itself. The plaintiffs were not prejudiced by the lack of a\\nproper Code citation. Therefore, the presumption in favor of\\na directory reading has not been overcome.\\n Because we hold the “specific reference” provision is di-\\nrectory rather than mandatory, the plaintiffs’ argument the\\nviolation notices were void ab initio fails as a matter of law,\\nand their unjust enrichment claim falls with it.\\n III. Conclusion\\n The plaintiffs have failed to state a claim either for viola-\\ntion of due process or unjust enrichment. The district court\\nproperly dismissed the case. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the de-\\ncision of the district court.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4422281/\", \"author_raw\": \"Daniel Anthony Manion\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"MANION"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"SYKES"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"BRENNAN"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"MANION\": \", Circuit\", \"SYKES\": \", Circuit\", \"BRENNAN\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645028/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":8,"string":"8"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Brian Knutson v. Village of Lakemoor\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-08-01\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-3729\nBRIAN KNUTSON, et al.,\n Plaintiffs-Appellants,\n v.\n\nVILLAGE OF LAKEMOOR,\n Defendant-Appellee.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\n No. 1:18-cv-01804 — Marvin E. Aspen, Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED APRIL 17, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 1, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before MANION, SYKES, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\n MANION, Circuit Judge. This class action suit challenges the\nred light camera program of the Village of Lakemoor, Illinois.\nThe plaintiffs received violation notices from Lakemoor that\nthey claim are invalid because the notices lack a proper mu-\nnicipal code citation. They also claim Lakemoor denied them\ndue process by limiting the defenses that can be asserted be-\nfore a hearing officer to contest a violation. The district court\ndismissed the case for failure to state a claim. We affirm.\n\f2 No. 18-3729\n\n I. Background\n Describing the plaintiffs’ claims requires reading several\nprovisions of Lakemoor’s Municipal Code of Ordinances (the\n“Code”) together. First, Chapter 1 of the Code outlines the\nCode’s numbering system: “Each section number of this code\nshall consist of two component parts separated by a period,\nthe figure before the period referring to the chapter number\nand the figure after the period referring to the section within\nthe chapter.” Lakemoor Mun. Code § 1.01(C).\n Chapter 41-1/21 of the Code covers traffic violations. It in-\ncorporates by reference the Illinois Vehicle Code (IVC), and\nstates “[t]he section numbers used in the [IVC] shall be iden-\ntical to those section numbers in the Lakemoor Vehicle Code.\nTherefore, an ordinance violation shall be cited as ‘Chapter\n41-1/2,’ followed by the corresponding IVC section number.”\nId. § 41-1/2.01.\n In 2012, Lakemoor enacted an ordinance titled\n“AUTOMATED TRAFFIC LAW ENFORCEMENT\nPROGRAM,” and codified it as Section 14 of Chapter 41-1/2.\nId. § 41-1/2.14. Section 14 authorizes a system of red light cam-\neras located at certain intersections to detect and record red\nlight violations. Id. It states “[i]t shall be a violation of this sec-\ntion for anyone to operate a vehicle in disregard of a traffic\ncontrol device or to turn right on a red light where it is posted\n‘No Turn on Red,’” id. § 41-1/2.14(B), but it also incorporates\nby reference the IVC’s prohibition of the same conduct, id.\n§ 41-1/2.14(C)(1), (C)(4) (citing IVC § 11-306).\n\n\n\n 1\n This chapter is referred to as Chapter 41-1/2 because it falls between\nChapters 41 and 42.\n\fNo. 18-3729 3\n\n When a red light camera captures a vehicle committing a\nred light violation, Section 14 requires a written violation no-\ntice to be issued to the registered owner of the vehicle. Id. § 41-\n1/2.14(C)(4). Section 14 lists the information that the notice\n“shall include,” such as the name and address of the regis-\ntered owner of the vehicle, the location, date, and time of the\nviolation, and, importantly for this appeal, “[t]he violation\ncharged, with specific reference to that section of the Village\nof Lakemoor Municipal Code of Ordinances allegedly vio-\nlated.” Id. § 41-1/2.14(C)(4)(c). The violation notice constitutes\nprima facie evidence of a violation, which can be rebutted by\nseveral enumerated defenses. Id. § 41-1/2.14(C)(6). A recipient\nof a violation notice may request adjudication before a hear-\ning officer, where he may present only the defenses listed in\nSection 14(C)(6). The list of defenses does not include chal-\nlenges to the violation notice’s compliance with Section 14’s\nrequirements. Id.\n In its entirety, Section 14 comprises approximately 42 sub-\nsections and sub-subsections and takes up roughly four full\npages. At the end of Section 14 is the following parenthetical:\n“(Ord. 12-O-03, passed 1-26-2012),” referencing the ordinance\nnumber as it was passed and its date of passage. Lakemoor’s\nonline ordinance compilation includes a cross-reference chart\nthat links Ord. No. 12-O-03 to Section 14.2\n\n\n 2 See Village of Lakemoor, Illinois Code of Ordinances, AM. LEGAL PUBL’G\nCORP., http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Illinois/lakemoor_il/vil\nlageoflakemoorillinoiscodeofordinance?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$\nvid=amlegal:lakemoor_il (last visited Aug. 1, 2019). From this page, the\nentire municipal code is accessible through a navigation panel on the left\nside of the screen, arranged by chapters and sections. At the very bottom\n\f4 No. 18-3729\n\n Each plaintiff received at least one such notice of violation.\nNext to the label “Code Violation and Description,” the no-\ntices include simply the notation “12-O-03.” However, the no-\ntices also include photographs of the violation occurrence and\nstate these photographs depict “a violation of a red light sig-\nnal and/or law pertaining to ‘Right Turn on Red.’” The notices\nfurther provide a complete list of defenses and grounds for\ncontesting the violation as well as instructions for contesting\nthe violation by mail or in person.\n All but one of the named plaintiffs chose to pay the $100\nfine for each violation,3 and none requested a hearing. They\nthen filed suit in federal court, seeking to certify three classes:\n(1) all individuals who received a violation notice from Lake-\nmoor, (2) those who paid the fine, and (3) those who have not\npaid the fine. The plaintiffs alleged Lakemoor deprived them\nof due process under color of state law and sought declaratory\n\n\nof this navigation panel is a link labelled “REFERENCES TO\nORDINANCES” within the expandable folder “PARALLEL\nREFERENCES.” That page includes a chart of all ordinance numbers ar-\nranged in numerical order. For each ordinance number, the chart lists the\ndate on which it was adopted and provides a direct link to the code chap-\nter(s) and section(s) included in that ordinance. For Ordinance No. 12-O-\n03, the provided link leads directly to Section 14, although we note the\nhyperlink text is mislabeled as “§ 4-1/2.14”. Searching for “12-O-03” in the\npage’s search bar does not lead one to the proper chapter, section, or the\nordinance cross-reference chart.\n 3 One outlier plaintiff, Heather Bendl, received multiple violation no-\ntices but did not voluntarily pay the attached fines. Her state income tax\nreturn was garnished for the amount due in February 2018, but she later\nreceived another violation notice in April 2018. The fine for that violation\nremained unpaid at the time of the filing of the amended complaint.\n\fNo. 18-3729 5\n\njudgment. They argued the violation notices were void ab in-\nitio because the notation “12-O-03” does not suffice as a “spe-\ncific reference to that section of the [Code] allegedly violated.”\nInstead, reading Lakemoor Municipal Code §§ 1.01, 41-1/2.01,\nand 41-1/2.14(C)(4)(c) together, they contended the violation\nnotices must contain a citation to Chapter 41-1/2 of the Code\nalong with the section number of the IVC dealing with red\nlight violations (IVC § 11-306(c)). Therefore, the plaintiffs as-\nserted the proper citation is “Lakemoor Mun. Code § 41-\n1/2.11-306(c).” They claimed Lakemoor deprived them of due\nprocess by not including a challenge to the notice’s validity as\nan available defense under Section 14(C)(6). In addition to\ntheir due process claim, the plaintiffs asserted a state law un-\njust enrichment claim based on the same allegations.4\n The district court held the notices were valid because Sec-\ntion 14 incorporates by reference IVC § 11-306(c) and “12-O-\n03” is a parallel session law citation to Section 14 that satisfies\nthe “specific reference” requirement. Moreover, the district\n\n\n 4 The plaintiffs also asserted a due process claim under the Illinois\nConstitution and a claim for injunctive relief as a separate count. The\nplaintiffs abandoned the state constitutional claim at the district court.\nWith respect to injunctive relief, that is a remedy, not a cause of action,\nand thus should not be pleaded as a separate count. See Guardians Ass’n v.\nCivil Serv. Com’n, 463 U.S. 582, 595 (1983) (“Whether a litigant has a cause\nof action ‘is analytically distinct and prior to the question of what relief, if\nany, a litigant may be entitled to receive.”); CustomGuide v. CareerBuilder,\nLLC, 813 F. Supp. 2d 990, 1002 (N.D. Ill. 2011) (“An injunction ‘is an equi-\ntable remedy, not a separate cause of action.’”). The district court properly\ndismissed that count on that basis. Furthermore, because we hold the\nplaintiffs failed to state a claim for violation of due process or unjust en-\nrichment, they are not entitled to injunctive relief.\n\f6 No. 18-3729\n\ncourt held the plaintiffs were not deprived of due process by\nthe limitation of defenses because the defense they sought to\nassert was not viable. The district court dismissed the case.\nThe plaintiffs appeal.\n II. Analysis\n The plaintiffs assert a due process claim under the Four-\nteenth Amendment and a state law unjust enrichment claim\nand seek declaratory judgment.5 We review the district court’s\ndismissal de novo. Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1081\n(7th Cir. 2008). “We may affirm a district court’s dismissal or-\nder on any basis supported by the record.” Craig v. Rich Tp.\nHigh Sch. Dist. 227, 736 F.3d 1110, 1118 (7th Cir. 2013).\n A. Due Process Claim\n The plaintiffs do not invoke the “substantive” due process\ndoctrine. Instead, their claim asserts only that they were not\nafforded the minimum procedural protections guaranteed by\nthe Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.\n In analyzing a procedural due process claim, we follow a\ntwo-step process. First, we determine if the plaintiff has been\ndeprived of a liberty or property interest. Second, we deter-\nmine if the plaintiff was provided constitutionally sufficient\nprocess. Grant v. Trs. of Ind. Univ., 870 F.3d 562, 571 (7th Cir.\n2017). Lakemoor does not dispute the plaintiffs have a pro-\ntected property interest in the $100 they were fined for each\nred light violation. Thus, the only question is what—or how\nmuch—process was due for that deprivation.\n\n\n\n 5 We have supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim pursuant\n\nto 28 U.S.C. § 1367.\n\fNo. 18-3729 7\n\n “The cornerstone of due process is notice and the oppor-\ntunity to be heard ‘at a meaningful time and in a meaningful\nmanner.’” Id. (quoting Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333\n(1976)). In this case, the plaintiffs received both. They received\na written notice of each violation, which included a descrip-\ntion and photograph of the violation as well as the time, date,\nand location where it occurred. They also had an opportunity\nto contest the violation before a hearing officer, and the viola-\ntion notices explained in detail how to request such a hearing.\nDespite this, the plaintiffs argue they were denied a meaning-\nful opportunity for hearing because Section 14 limits the de-\nfenses they can raise before the hearing officer. The limited\ndefenses do not include challenging the violation notice as\nvoid for failure to comply with Section 14’s requirements.\nThis argument is unavailing.\n The requirements of due process are not rigid; rather, due\nprocess “is flexible and requires only ‘such procedural protec-\ntions as the particular situation demands.’” Riano v. McDon-\nald, 833 F.3d 830, 834 (7th Cir. 2016) (quoting Ringquist v.\nHampton, 582 F.2d 1138, 1140 (7th Cir. 1978)). Less process is\ndue where less is at stake. Van Harken v. City of Chicago, 103\nF.3d 1346, 1353 (7th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, we consider three\nfactors when determining what process is due before the gov-\nernment effects a deprivation: (1) the nature of the private in-\nterest at stake, (2) the risk of erroneous deprivation through\nthe procedures used, and (3) the governmental interest.\nMathews, 424 U.S. at 334–35.\n First, the private interest at stake in this case—a $100\nfine—is relatively small. See Van Harken, 103 F.3d at 1353 (find-\ning less process was due where maximum possible penalty\nfor parking violation was “only $100”). We do not pretend a\n\f8 No. 18-3729\n\n$100 fine is of no consequence. However, in the grand scheme\nof deprivations the government can effect, including impris-\nonment or the seizure of highly valuable property, a $100 fine\nis among the less serious sort. Accordingly, this factor sug-\ngests less process was required here.\n Second, Lakemoor’s limitation of defenses does not pre-\nsent a risk of erroneous deprivation. Lakemoor allows alleged\nviolators to contest the violation on various grounds that, if\ntrue, would refute or alleviate culpability. For example, Sec-\ntion 14 allows a recipient of a violation notice to assert, inter\nalia, the following arguments as defenses: the vehicle was\nowned by or leased to another individual at the time of the\nviolation; the driver passed through the red light in order to\nyield to an emergency vehicle; the vehicle cannot be ade-\nquately identified in the photo; or the driver was already is-\nsued a citation for the same violation. Lakemoor Mun. Code\n§ 41-1/2.14(C)(6). By contrast, the plaintiffs’ desired defense\n(namely, the violation notice did not contain a proper citation\nto the Code section allegedly violated) has no bearing on cul-\npability. Preventing alleged violators from asserting this tech-\nnicality as a defense does not present a risk of erroneous dep-\nrivation. Thus, this factor weighs in favor of finding the pro-\ncess provided was constitutionally sufficient.\n Finally, limiting the universe of possible defenses furthers\nthe government’s interest in administrative efficiency. In\nMathews, the Supreme Court noted as relevant the “fiscal and\nadministrative burdens that the additional or substitute pro-\ncedural requirement would entail.” 424 U.S. at 335; see also\nCont’l Training Servs., Inc. v. Cavazos, 893 F.2d 877, 893 (7th Cir.\n1990) (stating the “conservation of resources and administra-\ntive efficiency” are “unquestionably” governmental\n\fNo. 18-3729 9\n\ninterests). Requiring the hearing officer to entertain any de-\nfenses the alleged violator desires to raise, even those with no\nbearing on culpability, would create a greater administrative\nburden and cost for Lakemoor. This factor supports Lake-\nmoor’s choice to limit the possible defenses to those that re-\nfute or alleviate culpability.\n We have previously held a plaintiff is not deprived of a\nmeaningful opportunity to be heard simply because the de-\nfense he wishes to assert is not available to him at the pro-\nvided hearing. Cochran v. Ill. State Toll Highway Auth., 828 F.3d\n597, 601 (7th Cir. 2016). In Cochran, the plaintiff received notice\nof a toll violation and was entitled to request a hearing. How-\never, because the toll violation was a strict liability offense, the\nplaintiff was prevented from presenting a knowledge defense\nat the hearing. He argued that this limitation of his defenses\nrendered the opportunity for hearing meaningless, but we\ndisagreed. “Although the knowledge defense was not availa-\nble, other defenses were. Thus, plaintiff was not precluded\nfrom presenting any defense, and the hearing was not mean-\ningless.” Id.\n Similarly, the fact that the plaintiffs in this case could not\nassert a defense based on the violation notice’s lack of a Code\ncitation does not mean that the hearing—at which they could\nhave raised several other defenses—would have been mean-\ningless. The process that the plaintiffs received was constitu-\ntionally sufficient, and they have, therefore, failed to state a\nfederal due process claim.\n B. Unjust Enrichment Claim\n The plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim is based on the\nsame underlying allegations as the due process claim. They\n\f10 No. 18-3729\n\nassert Lakemoor has been unjustly enriched by receiving pay-\nment of fines to which it was not entitled.\n The plaintiffs argue the violation notices were void ab ini-\ntio because they did not include a proper citation to “that sec-\ntion of the [Code] allegedly violated” as required by Section\n14. See Lakemoor Mun. Code § 41-1/2.14(C)(4)(c). This argu-\nment fails because there is no indication that the “specific ref-\nerence” requirement was intended to be read as a mandatory\nprovision rather than a directory one.\n “A mandatory provision and a directory provision are\nboth couched in obligatory language, but they differ in that\nnoncompliance with a mandatory provision vitiates the gov-\nernmental action, whereas noncompliance with a directory\nprovision has no such effect.” In re M.I., 2011 IL App (1st)\n100865, ¶ 47, 964 N.E.2d 72, 83. Under Illinois law, a proce-\ndural command in a statute is presumed to be directory rather\nthan mandatory. People v. Geiler, 2016 IL 119095, ¶ 18, 57\nN.E.3d 1221, 1224–25. That presumption can be overcome\nonly if (1) the statute uses negative language to prohibit fur-\nther action in the event of noncompliance, or (2) the statute is\ndesigned to protect a right that would generally be injured if\nthe provision is read as directory. Id.\n Although Section 14 states a violation notice “shall in-\nclude” a “specific reference” to the Code section allegedly vi-\nolated, we see no basis for overturning the presumption that\nthis requirement is directory rather than mandatory. First,\nSection 14 contains no negative language prohibiting Lake-\nmoor from taking further action in the event of noncompli-\nance.\n\fNo. 18-3729 11\n\n Second, although the plaintiffs argue their right to be fully\ninformed of an alleged violation would be injured by a direc-\ntory reading, this is simply not the case. The plaintiffs suffered\nno failure of notice caused by the “12-O-03” notation. The no-\ntice of violation each plaintiff received includes multiple pho-\ntographs of each plaintiffs’ registered vehicle in the act of en-\ntering an intersection on a red light, with the license plate vis-\nible, and describes the photographs as evidencing “a violation\nof a red light signal and/or law pertaining to ‘Right Turn on\nRed.’” Each notice also includes the time, date, and location of\nthe violation. Further, each notice provides detailed infor-\nmation about the procedures for contesting the violation, the\ndate by which the fine must be paid or the violation contested,\nand a full list of possible defenses derived from Section 14.\n Everything the plaintiffs needed to know to contest the vi-\nolation was fully and clearly explained in the notice of viola-\ntion itself. The plaintiffs were not prejudiced by the lack of a\nproper Code citation. Therefore, the presumption in favor of\na directory reading has not been overcome.\n Because we hold the “specific reference” provision is di-\nrectory rather than mandatory, the plaintiffs’ argument the\nviolation notices were void ab initio fails as a matter of law,\nand their unjust enrichment claim falls with it.\n III. Conclusion\n The plaintiffs have failed to state a claim either for viola-\ntion of due process or unjust enrichment. The district court\nproperly dismissed the case. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the de-\ncision of the district court.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Brian Knutson v. Village of Lakemoor\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-08-01\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-3729\\nBRIAN KNUTSON, et al.,\\n Plaintiffs-Appellants,\\n v.\\n\\nVILLAGE OF LAKEMOOR,\\n Defendant-Appellee.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 1:18-cv-01804 — Marvin E. Aspen, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED APRIL 17, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 1, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before MANION, SYKES, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\\n MANION, Circuit Judge. This class action suit challenges the\\nred light camera program of the Village of Lakemoor, Illinois.\\nThe plaintiffs received violation notices from Lakemoor that\\nthey claim are invalid because the notices lack a proper mu-\\nnicipal code citation. They also claim Lakemoor denied them\\ndue process by limiting the defenses that can be asserted be-\\nfore a hearing officer to contest a violation. The district court\\ndismissed the case for failure to state a claim. We affirm.\\n\\f2 No. 18-3729\\n\\n I. Background\\n Describing the plaintiffs’ claims requires reading several\\nprovisions of Lakemoor’s Municipal Code of Ordinances (the\\n“Code”) together. First, Chapter 1 of the Code outlines the\\nCode’s numbering system: “Each section number of this code\\nshall consist of two component parts separated by a period,\\nthe figure before the period referring to the chapter number\\nand the figure after the period referring to the section within\\nthe chapter.” Lakemoor Mun. Code § 1.01(C).\\n Chapter 41-1/21 of the Code covers traffic violations. It in-\\ncorporates by reference the Illinois Vehicle Code (IVC), and\\nstates “[t]he section numbers used in the [IVC] shall be iden-\\ntical to those section numbers in the Lakemoor Vehicle Code.\\nTherefore, an ordinance violation shall be cited as ‘Chapter\\n41-1/2,’ followed by the corresponding IVC section number.”\\nId. § 41-1/2.01.\\n In 2012, Lakemoor enacted an ordinance titled\\n“AUTOMATED TRAFFIC LAW ENFORCEMENT\\nPROGRAM,” and codified it as Section 14 of Chapter 41-1/2.\\nId. § 41-1/2.14. Section 14 authorizes a system of red light cam-\\neras located at certain intersections to detect and record red\\nlight violations. Id. It states “[i]t shall be a violation of this sec-\\ntion for anyone to operate a vehicle in disregard of a traffic\\ncontrol device or to turn right on a red light where it is posted\\n‘No Turn on Red,’” id. § 41-1/2.14(B), but it also incorporates\\nby reference the IVC’s prohibition of the same conduct, id.\\n§ 41-1/2.14(C)(1), (C)(4) (citing IVC § 11-306).\\n\\n\\n\\n 1\\n This chapter is referred to as Chapter 41-1/2 because it falls between\\nChapters 41 and 42.\\n\\fNo. 18-3729 3\\n\\n When a red light camera captures a vehicle committing a\\nred light violation, Section 14 requires a written violation no-\\ntice to be issued to the registered owner of the vehicle. Id. § 41-\\n1/2.14(C)(4). Section 14 lists the information that the notice\\n“shall include,” such as the name and address of the regis-\\ntered owner of the vehicle, the location, date, and time of the\\nviolation, and, importantly for this appeal, “[t]he violation\\ncharged, with specific reference to that section of the Village\\nof Lakemoor Municipal Code of Ordinances allegedly vio-\\nlated.” Id. § 41-1/2.14(C)(4)(c). The violation notice constitutes\\nprima facie evidence of a violation, which can be rebutted by\\nseveral enumerated defenses. Id. § 41-1/2.14(C)(6). A recipient\\nof a violation notice may request adjudication before a hear-\\ning officer, where he may present only the defenses listed in\\nSection 14(C)(6). The list of defenses does not include chal-\\nlenges to the violation notice’s compliance with Section 14’s\\nrequirements. Id.\\n In its entirety, Section 14 comprises approximately 42 sub-\\nsections and sub-subsections and takes up roughly four full\\npages. At the end of Section 14 is the following parenthetical:\\n“(Ord. 12-O-03, passed 1-26-2012),” referencing the ordinance\\nnumber as it was passed and its date of passage. Lakemoor’s\\nonline ordinance compilation includes a cross-reference chart\\nthat links Ord. No. 12-O-03 to Section 14.2\\n\\n\\n 2 See Village of Lakemoor, Illinois Code of Ordinances, AM. LEGAL PUBL’G\\nCORP., http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Illinois/lakemoor_il/vil\\nlageoflakemoorillinoiscodeofordinance?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$\\nvid=amlegal:lakemoor_il (last visited Aug. 1, 2019). From this page, the\\nentire municipal code is accessible through a navigation panel on the left\\nside of the screen, arranged by chapters and sections. At the very bottom\\n\\f4 No. 18-3729\\n\\n Each plaintiff received at least one such notice of violation.\\nNext to the label “Code Violation and Description,” the no-\\ntices include simply the notation “12-O-03.” However, the no-\\ntices also include photographs of the violation occurrence and\\nstate these photographs depict “a violation of a red light sig-\\nnal and/or law pertaining to ‘Right Turn on Red.’” The notices\\nfurther provide a complete list of defenses and grounds for\\ncontesting the violation as well as instructions for contesting\\nthe violation by mail or in person.\\n All but one of the named plaintiffs chose to pay the $100\\nfine for each violation,3 and none requested a hearing. They\\nthen filed suit in federal court, seeking to certify three classes:\\n(1) all individuals who received a violation notice from Lake-\\nmoor, (2) those who paid the fine, and (3) those who have not\\npaid the fine. The plaintiffs alleged Lakemoor deprived them\\nof due process under color of state law and sought declaratory\\n\\n\\nof this navigation panel is a link labelled “REFERENCES TO\\nORDINANCES” within the expandable folder “PARALLEL\\nREFERENCES.” That page includes a chart of all ordinance numbers ar-\\nranged in numerical order. For each ordinance number, the chart lists the\\ndate on which it was adopted and provides a direct link to the code chap-\\nter(s) and section(s) included in that ordinance. For Ordinance No. 12-O-\\n03, the provided link leads directly to Section 14, although we note the\\nhyperlink text is mislabeled as “§ 4-1/2.14”. Searching for “12-O-03” in the\\npage’s search bar does not lead one to the proper chapter, section, or the\\nordinance cross-reference chart.\\n 3 One outlier plaintiff, Heather Bendl, received multiple violation no-\\ntices but did not voluntarily pay the attached fines. Her state income tax\\nreturn was garnished for the amount due in February 2018, but she later\\nreceived another violation notice in April 2018. The fine for that violation\\nremained unpaid at the time of the filing of the amended complaint.\\n\\fNo. 18-3729 5\\n\\njudgment. They argued the violation notices were void ab in-\\nitio because the notation “12-O-03” does not suffice as a “spe-\\ncific reference to that section of the [Code] allegedly violated.”\\nInstead, reading Lakemoor Municipal Code §§ 1.01, 41-1/2.01,\\nand 41-1/2.14(C)(4)(c) together, they contended the violation\\nnotices must contain a citation to Chapter 41-1/2 of the Code\\nalong with the section number of the IVC dealing with red\\nlight violations (IVC § 11-306(c)). Therefore, the plaintiffs as-\\nserted the proper citation is “Lakemoor Mun. Code § 41-\\n1/2.11-306(c).” They claimed Lakemoor deprived them of due\\nprocess by not including a challenge to the notice’s validity as\\nan available defense under Section 14(C)(6). In addition to\\ntheir due process claim, the plaintiffs asserted a state law un-\\njust enrichment claim based on the same allegations.4\\n The district court held the notices were valid because Sec-\\ntion 14 incorporates by reference IVC § 11-306(c) and “12-O-\\n03” is a parallel session law citation to Section 14 that satisfies\\nthe “specific reference” requirement. Moreover, the district\\n\\n\\n 4 The plaintiffs also asserted a due process claim under the Illinois\\nConstitution and a claim for injunctive relief as a separate count. The\\nplaintiffs abandoned the state constitutional claim at the district court.\\nWith respect to injunctive relief, that is a remedy, not a cause of action,\\nand thus should not be pleaded as a separate count. See Guardians Ass’n v.\\nCivil Serv. Com’n, 463 U.S. 582, 595 (1983) (“Whether a litigant has a cause\\nof action ‘is analytically distinct and prior to the question of what relief, if\\nany, a litigant may be entitled to receive.”); CustomGuide v. CareerBuilder,\\nLLC, 813 F. Supp. 2d 990, 1002 (N.D. Ill. 2011) (“An injunction ‘is an equi-\\ntable remedy, not a separate cause of action.’”). The district court properly\\ndismissed that count on that basis. Furthermore, because we hold the\\nplaintiffs failed to state a claim for violation of due process or unjust en-\\nrichment, they are not entitled to injunctive relief.\\n\\f6 No. 18-3729\\n\\ncourt held the plaintiffs were not deprived of due process by\\nthe limitation of defenses because the defense they sought to\\nassert was not viable. The district court dismissed the case.\\nThe plaintiffs appeal.\\n II. Analysis\\n The plaintiffs assert a due process claim under the Four-\\nteenth Amendment and a state law unjust enrichment claim\\nand seek declaratory judgment.5 We review the district court’s\\ndismissal de novo. Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1081\\n(7th Cir. 2008). “We may affirm a district court’s dismissal or-\\nder on any basis supported by the record.” Craig v. Rich Tp.\\nHigh Sch. Dist. 227, 736 F.3d 1110, 1118 (7th Cir. 2013).\\n A. Due Process Claim\\n The plaintiffs do not invoke the “substantive” due process\\ndoctrine. Instead, their claim asserts only that they were not\\nafforded the minimum procedural protections guaranteed by\\nthe Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.\\n In analyzing a procedural due process claim, we follow a\\ntwo-step process. First, we determine if the plaintiff has been\\ndeprived of a liberty or property interest. Second, we deter-\\nmine if the plaintiff was provided constitutionally sufficient\\nprocess. Grant v. Trs. of Ind. Univ., 870 F.3d 562, 571 (7th Cir.\\n2017). Lakemoor does not dispute the plaintiffs have a pro-\\ntected property interest in the $100 they were fined for each\\nred light violation. Thus, the only question is what—or how\\nmuch—process was due for that deprivation.\\n\\n\\n\\n 5 We have supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim pursuant\\n\\nto 28 U.S.C. § 1367.\\n\\fNo. 18-3729 7\\n\\n “The cornerstone of due process is notice and the oppor-\\ntunity to be heard ‘at a meaningful time and in a meaningful\\nmanner.’” Id. (quoting Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333\\n(1976)). In this case, the plaintiffs received both. They received\\na written notice of each violation, which included a descrip-\\ntion and photograph of the violation as well as the time, date,\\nand location where it occurred. They also had an opportunity\\nto contest the violation before a hearing officer, and the viola-\\ntion notices explained in detail how to request such a hearing.\\nDespite this, the plaintiffs argue they were denied a meaning-\\nful opportunity for hearing because Section 14 limits the de-\\nfenses they can raise before the hearing officer. The limited\\ndefenses do not include challenging the violation notice as\\nvoid for failure to comply with Section 14’s requirements.\\nThis argument is unavailing.\\n The requirements of due process are not rigid; rather, due\\nprocess “is flexible and requires only ‘such procedural protec-\\ntions as the particular situation demands.’” Riano v. McDon-\\nald, 833 F.3d 830, 834 (7th Cir. 2016) (quoting Ringquist v.\\nHampton, 582 F.2d 1138, 1140 (7th Cir. 1978)). Less process is\\ndue where less is at stake. Van Harken v. City of Chicago, 103\\nF.3d 1346, 1353 (7th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, we consider three\\nfactors when determining what process is due before the gov-\\nernment effects a deprivation: (1) the nature of the private in-\\nterest at stake, (2) the risk of erroneous deprivation through\\nthe procedures used, and (3) the governmental interest.\\nMathews, 424 U.S. at 334–35.\\n First, the private interest at stake in this case—a $100\\nfine—is relatively small. See Van Harken, 103 F.3d at 1353 (find-\\ning less process was due where maximum possible penalty\\nfor parking violation was “only $100”). We do not pretend a\\n\\f8 No. 18-3729\\n\\n$100 fine is of no consequence. However, in the grand scheme\\nof deprivations the government can effect, including impris-\\nonment or the seizure of highly valuable property, a $100 fine\\nis among the less serious sort. Accordingly, this factor sug-\\ngests less process was required here.\\n Second, Lakemoor’s limitation of defenses does not pre-\\nsent a risk of erroneous deprivation. Lakemoor allows alleged\\nviolators to contest the violation on various grounds that, if\\ntrue, would refute or alleviate culpability. For example, Sec-\\ntion 14 allows a recipient of a violation notice to assert, inter\\nalia, the following arguments as defenses: the vehicle was\\nowned by or leased to another individual at the time of the\\nviolation; the driver passed through the red light in order to\\nyield to an emergency vehicle; the vehicle cannot be ade-\\nquately identified in the photo; or the driver was already is-\\nsued a citation for the same violation. Lakemoor Mun. Code\\n§ 41-1/2.14(C)(6). By contrast, the plaintiffs’ desired defense\\n(namely, the violation notice did not contain a proper citation\\nto the Code section allegedly violated) has no bearing on cul-\\npability. Preventing alleged violators from asserting this tech-\\nnicality as a defense does not present a risk of erroneous dep-\\nrivation. Thus, this factor weighs in favor of finding the pro-\\ncess provided was constitutionally sufficient.\\n Finally, limiting the universe of possible defenses furthers\\nthe government’s interest in administrative efficiency. In\\nMathews, the Supreme Court noted as relevant the “fiscal and\\nadministrative burdens that the additional or substitute pro-\\ncedural requirement would entail.” 424 U.S. at 335; see also\\nCont’l Training Servs., Inc. v. Cavazos, 893 F.2d 877, 893 (7th Cir.\\n1990) (stating the “conservation of resources and administra-\\ntive efficiency” are “unquestionably” governmental\\n\\fNo. 18-3729 9\\n\\ninterests). Requiring the hearing officer to entertain any de-\\nfenses the alleged violator desires to raise, even those with no\\nbearing on culpability, would create a greater administrative\\nburden and cost for Lakemoor. This factor supports Lake-\\nmoor’s choice to limit the possible defenses to those that re-\\nfute or alleviate culpability.\\n We have previously held a plaintiff is not deprived of a\\nmeaningful opportunity to be heard simply because the de-\\nfense he wishes to assert is not available to him at the pro-\\nvided hearing. Cochran v. Ill. State Toll Highway Auth., 828 F.3d\\n597, 601 (7th Cir. 2016). In Cochran, the plaintiff received notice\\nof a toll violation and was entitled to request a hearing. How-\\never, because the toll violation was a strict liability offense, the\\nplaintiff was prevented from presenting a knowledge defense\\nat the hearing. He argued that this limitation of his defenses\\nrendered the opportunity for hearing meaningless, but we\\ndisagreed. “Although the knowledge defense was not availa-\\nble, other defenses were. Thus, plaintiff was not precluded\\nfrom presenting any defense, and the hearing was not mean-\\ningless.” Id.\\n Similarly, the fact that the plaintiffs in this case could not\\nassert a defense based on the violation notice’s lack of a Code\\ncitation does not mean that the hearing—at which they could\\nhave raised several other defenses—would have been mean-\\ningless. The process that the plaintiffs received was constitu-\\ntionally sufficient, and they have, therefore, failed to state a\\nfederal due process claim.\\n B. Unjust Enrichment Claim\\n The plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim is based on the\\nsame underlying allegations as the due process claim. They\\n\\f10 No. 18-3729\\n\\nassert Lakemoor has been unjustly enriched by receiving pay-\\nment of fines to which it was not entitled.\\n The plaintiffs argue the violation notices were void ab ini-\\ntio because they did not include a proper citation to “that sec-\\ntion of the [Code] allegedly violated” as required by Section\\n14. See Lakemoor Mun. Code § 41-1/2.14(C)(4)(c). This argu-\\nment fails because there is no indication that the “specific ref-\\nerence” requirement was intended to be read as a mandatory\\nprovision rather than a directory one.\\n “A mandatory provision and a directory provision are\\nboth couched in obligatory language, but they differ in that\\nnoncompliance with a mandatory provision vitiates the gov-\\nernmental action, whereas noncompliance with a directory\\nprovision has no such effect.” In re M.I., 2011 IL App (1st)\\n100865, ¶ 47, 964 N.E.2d 72, 83. Under Illinois law, a proce-\\ndural command in a statute is presumed to be directory rather\\nthan mandatory. People v. Geiler, 2016 IL 119095, ¶ 18, 57\\nN.E.3d 1221, 1224–25. That presumption can be overcome\\nonly if (1) the statute uses negative language to prohibit fur-\\nther action in the event of noncompliance, or (2) the statute is\\ndesigned to protect a right that would generally be injured if\\nthe provision is read as directory. Id.\\n Although Section 14 states a violation notice “shall in-\\nclude” a “specific reference” to the Code section allegedly vi-\\nolated, we see no basis for overturning the presumption that\\nthis requirement is directory rather than mandatory. First,\\nSection 14 contains no negative language prohibiting Lake-\\nmoor from taking further action in the event of noncompli-\\nance.\\n\\fNo. 18-3729 11\\n\\n Second, although the plaintiffs argue their right to be fully\\ninformed of an alleged violation would be injured by a direc-\\ntory reading, this is simply not the case. The plaintiffs suffered\\nno failure of notice caused by the “12-O-03” notation. The no-\\ntice of violation each plaintiff received includes multiple pho-\\ntographs of each plaintiffs’ registered vehicle in the act of en-\\ntering an intersection on a red light, with the license plate vis-\\nible, and describes the photographs as evidencing “a violation\\nof a red light signal and/or law pertaining to ‘Right Turn on\\nRed.’” Each notice also includes the time, date, and location of\\nthe violation. Further, each notice provides detailed infor-\\nmation about the procedures for contesting the violation, the\\ndate by which the fine must be paid or the violation contested,\\nand a full list of possible defenses derived from Section 14.\\n Everything the plaintiffs needed to know to contest the vi-\\nolation was fully and clearly explained in the notice of viola-\\ntion itself. The plaintiffs were not prejudiced by the lack of a\\nproper Code citation. Therefore, the presumption in favor of\\na directory reading has not been overcome.\\n Because we hold the “specific reference” provision is di-\\nrectory rather than mandatory, the plaintiffs’ argument the\\nviolation notices were void ab initio fails as a matter of law,\\nand their unjust enrichment claim falls with it.\\n III. Conclusion\\n The plaintiffs have failed to state a claim either for viola-\\ntion of due process or unjust enrichment. The district court\\nproperly dismissed the case. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the de-\\ncision of the district court.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3768,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4645046,"string":"4,645,046"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"United States v. Julian Thomas"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-08-01"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-1356"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before EASTERBROOK, KANNE, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"David Frank Hamilton\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-1356\\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\\n v.\\n\\nJULIAN THOMAS,\\n Defendant-Appellant.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Western District of Wisconsin.\\n No. 16-CR-00044-wmc-1 — William M. Conley, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED MARCH 27, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 1, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\nNo. 18-1519\\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\\n\\n v.\\n\\nJAMES THOMPSON,\\n Defendant-Appellant.\\n ____________________\\n\\f2 Nos. 18-1356 & 18-1519\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Western District of Wisconsin.\\n No. 16-CR-00044-wmc-2 — William M. Conley, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n SUBMITTED MARCH 27, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 1, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before EASTERBROOK, KANNE, and HAMILTON, Circuit\\nJudges.\\n HAMILTON, Circuit Judge. A federal grand jury indicted de-\\nfendants Julian Thomas and James Thompson for robbing a\\nbank. Count One charged them with armed bank robbery in\\nviolation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d). Count Two charged\\nthem with using and carrying a firearm by brandishing it dur-\\ning and in relation to a crime of violence in violation of 18\\nU.S.C. § 924(c). A joint trial was scheduled but then delayed—\\nfirst at Thomas’s request, and then again because Thompson’s\\ncounsel faced an irreconcilable conflict of interest because of\\na newly discovered witness for the government. Shortly be-\\nfore the delayed trial, however, Thompson pleaded guilty and\\nagreed to testify for the government against Thomas. Thomas\\nwent to trial. The jury found him guilty on both counts and\\nalso returned a special verdict finding that Thomas aided\\nThompson’s brandishing of a firearm in the bank robbery.\\nThe district court sentenced Thomas to thirteen years in\\nprison for the bank robbery and a consecutive seven years (the\\nstatutory minimum) for aiding and abetting Thompson’s\\nbrandishing.\\n Both defendants have appealed, but Thompson’s attorney\\nhas filed an Anders brief explaining that he does not believe\\nThompson has any viable arguments on appeal. We agree and\\n\\fNos. 18-1356 & 18-1519 3\\n\\ndismiss that appeal, No. 18-1519.1 Thomas contends on appeal\\nthat certain evidence and argument at his trial were improper,\\nthat the delay between his indictment and his trial violated\\nthe Speedy Trial Clause of the Sixth Amendment, and that the\\njury instructions for 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) were erroneous.\\nThomas failed to raise all but one of these issues in the district\\ncourt. We affirm his convictions and sentence in No. 18-1356.\\nI. Factual & Procedural Background\\n Thomas and Thompson were convicted of robbing the\\nPeoples Community Bank in Plain, a small town in Sauk\\nCounty, Wisconsin. The evidence at Thomas’s trial showed\\nthat he had been planning a bank robbery for some time.\\nThompson so testified, and he explained that Thomas had\\ntold him they would enter the bank and Thompson would\\nmonitor the bank’s tellers while Thomas would enter the\\nvault with the bank’s manager. They would then escape with\\na white female getaway driver.2\\n\\n 1 Thompson does not challenge the validity of his guilty plea, which\\nallowed him to avoid a mandatory life sentence. He was sentenced to ten\\nyears for the bank robbery and a consecutive seven years for brandishing\\nthe firearm. Neither his counsel nor we see any arguable procedural or\\nsubstantive error in the sentence. Thompson received his counsel’s Anders\\nbrief and submitted no response identifying any issues he wished to pur-\\nsue on appeal, as he could have under Circuit Rule 51(b).\\n 2 Robert Lynn, who was in the Dane County Jail with Thomas in\\nMarch 2014, testified that Thomas had told him he planned to rob a bank\\nin Plain by “pistol-whip[ping] some old ladies” to “keep the first respond-\\ners busy.” James Britton testified that as early as 2012 or 2013, Thomas had\\ntalked of his plan to rob a bank in a small town. Britton also testified that\\nThomas had solicited his help to find an accomplice and that Britton had\\nconnected Thomas with Thompson and received some of the robbery pro-\\nceeds.\\n\\f4 Nos. 18-1356 & 18-1519\\n\\n That is what actually happened. On the day of the robbery,\\nThomas and Beth Manbauman (who was being paid in her-\\noin) picked Thompson up at a bus stop. Thomas provided\\nThompson with a mask and loaded handgun. Thompson put\\nthe gun in his pocket. As Thompson and Thomas waited in an\\nalley outside the bank, Thompson removed the handgun\\nfrom his pocket. The two then ran into the bank. Both wore\\nmasks. Thompson pointed the gun at the bank’s tellers.\\nThompson got two tellers to empty their cash drawers while\\nThomas forced the bank’s manager to open the vault. They\\nfled with approximately $60,000 in a car driven by Manbau-\\nman.\\n The government introduced evidence showing that on the\\nday of the robbery, both Thompson and Manbauman had\\ncommunicated with a particular telephone number. The num-\\nber was registered to “Frank Smith” in Irvine, California, but\\nThompson testified that the number was listed in his tele-\\nphone as belonging to “Juice,” which was Thomas’s nick-\\nname. Other witnesses testified that Thomas went by the nick-\\nname “Juice.” The government was aware that Thomas would\\ntry to impeach Thompson’s credibility, so the government\\ncalled Thomas’s probation officer, Michael Ellestad, who tes-\\ntified that he had used that same telephone number to contact\\nThomas while supervising him between November 2014 and\\nJune 2015.\\n The government also introduced evidence that Thomas\\nhad a friend register as the straw owner of a used Mercedes\\nBenz automobile that he bought days after the robbery. Before\\ntrial, the court ruled that the government could introduce a\\nrecording of a telephone call Thomas made while in pretrial\\ndetention in which he said the car was worth $30,000. The lead\\n\\fNos. 18-1356 & 18-1519 5\\n\\ncase detective testified on cross-examination by the defense\\nthat he had listened to that telephone call.\\n Thomas did not call any witnesses but introduced three\\nexhibits. The defense theory was that James Britton, not\\nThomas, committed the robbery with Thompson. During\\nclosing arguments, according to Thomas, the prosecutor mis-\\nled the jury by repeatedly using the word “you” while ex-\\nplaining the reasonable-person standard for “intimidation”\\nunder 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). Without an objection from Thomas,\\nthe district court corrected the government in front of the jury,\\nexplaining that the inquiry is an objective one.\\n The district court instructed the jury on the elements of the\\ntwo counts against Thomas. Only the instructions for the fire-\\narm charge in Count Two are at issue in this appeal. The court\\ninstructed that a verdict of guilty on an aiding-and-abetting\\ntheory of liability required proof beyond a reasonable doubt\\nthat Thomas “knew before the bank robbery that James\\nThompson was going to use, carry, or brandish a firearm dur-\\ning and in relation to the bank robbery charged in Count 1,”\\nand that “[o]nce [Thomas] knew this, he intentionally facili-\\ntated” it. The court instructed the jurors that a guilty verdict\\nwould require that they “agree on at least one of these three\\nways”—using, carrying, or brandishing—“that James\\nThompson employed the firearm during the bank robbery.”\\nThe court included a special verdict form asking whether\\nThomas aided Thompson’s brandishing of a firearm, explain-\\ning: “The reason you’re being asked this question is to make\\ncertain that even if you found someone guilty of Count 2 …\\nyou all agree brandishing occurred.” This finding was neces-\\nsary to apply the statutory enhancement for brandishing. See\\n18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). When the jury asked a question\\n\\f6 Nos. 18-1356 & 18-1519\\n\\nwhile deliberating, the court told them that “aid,” “aids,” or\\n“aiding” have their ordinary meanings.\\n The jury found Thomas guilty of both counts and an-\\nswered yes to the special verdict question on brandishing. The\\ndistrict court sentenced Thomas to thirteen years in prison for\\nthe bank robbery charge and a consecutive sentence of seven\\nyears (the statutory minimum) for aiding and abetting\\nThompson’s brandishing of the firearm.\\nII. Discussion\\n Thomas raises five issues on appeal. Three relate to evi-\\ndence and argument at trial: (A) the admission of Thomas’s\\nprobation officer’s testimony that he used a particular tele-\\nphone number to contact Thomas; (B) the admission of the\\ntelephone call Thomas made while in pretrial detention say-\\ning that he purchased a car worth $30,000 after the bank rob-\\nbery; and (C) the government’s use of the word “you” instead\\nof “reasonable person” in its closing argument to describe the\\ninquiry for intimidation. The other two issues are (D) the\\nSpeedy Trial Clause claim and (E) a challenge to the jury in-\\nstructions for accomplice liability for brandishing a firearm\\nduring and in relation to a crime of violence.\\n When a defendant has objected to the admission of evi-\\ndence, we review the district court’s decision for an abuse of\\ndiscretion. United States v. Quiroz, 874 F.3d 562, 569 (7th Cir.\\n2017); United States v. Gorman, 613 F.3d 711, 717 (7th Cir. 2010).\\nWe generally review the legal accuracy of jury instructions de\\nnovo, while deferring to a district court’s discretion in the spe-\\ncific phrasing. See United States v. McClellan, 794 F.3d 743, 753\\n(7th Cir. 2015). But when a defendant fails to object to a po-\\ntential evidentiary error or jury instruction in the district\\n\\fNos. 18-1356 & 18-1519 7\\n\\ncourt, these forfeited objections are reviewed only for plain\\nerror. See United States v. Ambrose, 668 F.3d 943, 963 (7th Cir.\\n2012) (evidence); United States v. Lawson, 810 F.3d 1032, 1040\\n(7th Cir. 2016) (jury instructions); Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b) (“A\\nplain error that affects substantial rights may be considered\\neven though it was not brought to the court’s attention.”). On\\nplain-error review, we may reverse if: (1) an error occurred,\\n(2) the error was plain, (3) it affected the defendant’s substan-\\ntial rights, and (4) it seriously affected the fairness, integrity,\\nor public reputation of the proceedings. United States v. Olano,\\n507 U.S. 725, 732–38 (1993); United States v. Pierson, 925 F.3d\\n913, 919 (7th Cir. 2019). In the district court, Thomas objected\\nonly to the admission of the telephone call discussing the\\n$30,000 car, so we review the district court’s decision to admit\\nit under an abuse of discretion standard. We review all other\\nissues only for plain error.\\n A. Testimony of the Probation Officer\\n The government called Thomas’s probation officer to tes-\\ntify that he used a specific telephone number to contact\\nThomas in supervising him on probation. The Federal Rules\\nof Evidence sharply restrict admission of an accused defend-\\nant’s prior convictions. E.g., Fed. R. Evid. 404, 609. The re-\\nstrictions are designed to ensure that a defendant is convicted\\nbased on the evidence relevant to the charged offenses, not a\\nsupposed propensity to commit crimes based on evidence of\\nprior convictions. See United States v. Gomez, 763 F.3d 845,\\n855–56 (7th Cir. 2014) (en banc); United States v. Beck, 625 F.3d\\n410, 416 (7th Cir. 2010). We have repeatedly cautioned trial\\ncourts to consider carefully the introduction of previous con-\\nvictions. See, e.g., Beck, 625 F.3d at 416, citing United States v.\\nTaylor, 522 F.3d 731, 732–33 (7th Cir. 2008).\\n\\f8 Nos. 18-1356 & 18-1519\\n\\n In this case, there was not an explicit statement that\\nThomas was previously convicted of a crime, but we assume\\njurors would understand that a person on probation has pre-\\nviously been convicted of a crime. The testimony of Officer\\nEllestad that he used the telephone number to contact Thomas\\ncould establish Thomas’s identity and connection to the tele-\\nphone number, which is a permissible purpose under Rule\\n404(b). Yet, in response to a proper objection, the district court\\nwould still need to weigh its probative value against the risk\\nof unfair prejudice under Rules 403 and 404(b). Taylor, 522\\nF.3d at 732–33.\\n Without an objection, the district court did not plainly err\\nin admitting Officer Ellestad’s testimony. The testimony was\\nrelevant to show that the telephone number belonged to\\nThomas and that he used the number to coordinate with\\nThompson and Manbauman. Thomas disputed his involve-\\nment in the planning and execution of the robbery. He also\\ndisputed Thompson’s testimony explaining that he commu-\\nnicated with Thomas using that telephone number. The cor-\\nroborating testimony of Thomas’s probation officer—includ-\\ning his job title, which established that he clearly knew how\\nto get in touch with Thomas—had significant probative value.\\n When a defendant objects to evidence that will put the fact\\nof a prior conviction before the jury, the trial judge should\\nconsider whether other evidence might serve the same pur-\\npose and should weigh probative value against the risk of un-\\nfair prejudice. See United States v. Loughry, 660 F.3d 965, 974\\n(7th Cir. 2011) (“availability of other means of proof is an ap-\\npropriate factor to consider in determining the relevance of an\\nitem of evidence”), citing Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S.\\n172, 182–84 (1997). If Thomas had been willing to stipulate\\n\\fNos. 18-1356 & 18-1519 9\\n\\nthat the telephone number was his, there would have been no\\nreason to introduce his probation officer’s testimony. But\\nThomas disputed whether the number belonged to him. That\\nwas his right, of course, but the government was entitled to\\noffer evidence to corroborate Thompson’s testimony tying\\nThomas to the telephone number.\\n Also, the risk of unfair prejudice here was reduced. The\\njury was already aware through other, proper evidence that\\nThomas had a criminal history. The defense itself referred to\\nThomas’s criminal history multiple times. The defense noted\\nThomas’s prior incarceration with government witness Rob-\\nert Lynn in its opening statement. See Trial Tr. I-120 (“You’ll\\nalso hear that Detective Sabol finds out a couple months after\\nthe robbery that Mr. Thomas was in jail with a guy named\\nRobert Lynn. … They were in jail together the spring be-\\nfore.”). Thomas did not object to the introduction of Lynn’s\\ntestimony later in the trial. The defense’s opening statement\\nalso acknowledged:\\n During this trial you will learn that Mr. Thomas\\n is not a squeaky clean guy. We are not going to\\n try to pretend he’s something he’s not. He hangs\\n out with unsavory characters. Sometimes he\\n sells drugs to get by. Sometimes he steals credit\\n cards, forgery, makes his money that way, stuff\\n like that.\\nIn closing argument, the defense reiterated:\\n I know that Mr. Thomas is not a great guy. …\\n That’s not what makes him guilty of robbery.\\n Because those other bad acts, that evidence that,\\n like, “Hey, man, you’re with some unsavory\\n\\f10 Nos. 18-1356 & 18-1519\\n\\n folks. You’re a heroin dealer. You know, youʹre\\n the kind of guy that steals iPads and does credit\\n card fraud. You are a despicable human be-\\n ing”—if the charge was you’re a despicable hu-\\n man being, go for it, guilty, guilty, but it’s not.\\n Given these references from the defense, Officer Ellestad’s\\nreference to being Thomas’s probation officer was not un-\\nfairly prejudicial and did not outweigh the probative value of\\nhis testimony. See Fed. R. Evid. 403. Thomas’s criminal past\\n“was already before the jury,” and the likelihood that this as-\\npect of Officer Ellestad’s testimony “had any effect on the jury\\nis negligible.” United States v. Courtright, 632 F.3d 363, 370 (7th\\nCir. 2011). We doubt there was any error, and there certainly\\nwas no plain error, in admitting this testimony.\\n B. The $30,000 Car Telephone Call\\n Before trial, the government informed the court that it\\nwould offer a recording of a telephone call Thomas made\\nwhile in pretrial detention in which he said that a Mercedes\\nBenz he bought shortly after the robbery was worth $30,000.\\nThomas objected to this evidence, so we review the court’s\\ndecision to admit it for an abuse of discretion. United States v.\\nCunningham, 462 F.3d 708, 712 (7th Cir. 2006). While this is not\\nthe plain-error standard, this standard is still deferential.\\nUnited States v. Ozuna, 561 F.3d 728, 738 (7th Cir. 2009).\\n This issue has become a bit muddled factually. Shortly be-\\nfore oral argument on appeal, the government filed a letter\\nexplaining that the portion of this telephone call referring to\\nthe supposed $30,000 value of the car was “unintentionally\\ndeleted … from the recordings presented to the jury.” The ju-\\nrors heard only the portions of the recording where Thomas\\n\\fNos. 18-1356 & 18-1519 11\\n\\ndescribed the Mercedes as a “luxury car” that should run on\\npremium gas. In its opening statement, however, the govern-\\nment told the jury that it would hear about “jail phone calls”\\nin which Thomas said that the Mercedes was “all paid for and\\nthat it cost him $30,000.” Later in the trial, the defense on\\ncross-examination asked the lead case detective: “You heard\\nin a telephone call that Mr. Thomas said the car was worth\\n$30,000, correct?” The detective answered “Yes.” Since the\\nchallenged $30,000 statement was never actually played, the\\njury heard about it only in the government’s opening and the\\ndefense’s cross-examination of the detective. These discrep-\\nancies were not raised in the district court. We believe the\\nmost prudent way to proceed in this appeal is to review the\\ndistrict court’s ruling to admit the $30,000 statement as if the\\nstatement had been included in the recording played for the\\njury as part of the evidence.\\n The district court did not abuse its discretion in deciding\\nto admit this evidence. Thomas argues that the admission of\\nthis recording was cumulative because other evidence al-\\nready indicated that he bought the Mercedes Benz shortly af-\\nter the bank robbery. But Thomas would not stipulate to the\\nvalue of the car being $30,000, and at trial he asked questions\\nof witnesses suggesting, and argued in closing, that the value\\nwas much less.3 The government wanted to introduce this\\nstatement because $30,000 was roughly half of the proceeds of\\nthe bank robbery. The value of the car was disputed and\\nsomewhat relevant, and Thomas’s statement was not\\n\\n 3 While questioning the detective, Thomas noted that the car had\\n149,800 miles on it and “had been shot up”—suggesting that “a car that’s\\nbeen shot by a gun tends to depreciate in value” and would not be worth\\n$30,000. We express no opinion on the actual value of the car.\\n\\f12 Nos. 18-1356 & 18-1519\\n\\ncumulative because it was the only evidence of the supposed\\n$30,000 value of the car.\\n Thomas also argues that the reference to the “jail phone\\ncall” was unfairly prejudicial, but for reasons similar to those\\ndiscussed above regarding his probation officer, the reference\\nto his pretrial detention would have added little if anything\\nto what the jury already knew about him. We have explained\\nthat a defendant “may have been somewhat prejudiced” by\\nthe admission of recordings of telephone calls he made while\\nawaiting trial, but “the occasional reference to the fact that\\n[the defendant] had at some point been in jail” while awaiting\\ntrial is unlikely “to undermine the presumption of innocence\\nand the defendant’s right to a fair trial.” United States v. John-\\nson, 624 F.3d 815, 821–22 (7th Cir. 2010).\\n As with Officer Ellestad’s testimony, discussed above, if\\nThomas had stipulated to the supposed $30,000 value of the\\ncar, the government would not have had a good reason to in-\\ntroduce this evidence. See Loughry, 660 F.3d at 974. The dis-\\ntrict court gave Thomas the opportunity to so stipulate, but he\\nrefused—again, as he was perfectly entitled to. But without a\\nstipulation, this recording was the government’s only evi-\\ndence as to the supposed $30,000 value of the car. The value\\nof the car was disputed, and the jail telephone call was neither\\ncumulative nor unfairly prejudicial. The district court did not\\nabuse its discretion by deciding to allow evidence of\\nThomas’s statement that the Mercedes was worth $30,000.\\n C. “You” in the Government’s Closing Argument\\n For Count I—the bank-robbery offense—the government\\nwas required to prove that the money was taken from the\\nbank “by force and violence, or by intimidation.” 18 U.S.C.\\n\\fNos. 18-1356 & 18-1519 13\\n\\n§ 2113(a). “Intimidation exists when a bank robber’s words\\nand actions would cause an ordinary person to feel threat-\\nened, by giving rise to a reasonable fear that resistance or de-\\nfiance will be met with force.” United States v. Gordon, 642 F.3d\\n596, 598 (7th Cir. 2011). The district court instructed the jury\\nto that effect: “the term ‘intimidation’ means to say or do\\nsomething that would make a reasonable person feel threat-\\nened under the circumstances.”\\n In its closing argument, the government used language\\ndescribing this standard sometimes as objective and some-\\ntimes as subjective—referring sometimes to a “reasonable\\nperson” but also to “you,” arguably asking the jurors to think\\nabout how they themselves would have felt. The district court\\nfirmly corrected the prosecutor in front of the jury: “This is\\nthe second time you violated the golden rule. It’s not for you\\nto decide what you personally would feel. It is what a reason-\\nable person would feel, and I don’t want you to do it again.”\\nThe government apologized and explained to the jury: “So the\\njudge is right. It’s not what—it’s the reasonable person stand-\\nard, and you have to do the reasonable person standard.”\\n Even if the prosecutor’s language may have been im-\\nproper, the court immediately corrected it. Thomas raised no\\nobjection, and he was not deprived of a fair trial. See United\\nStates v. Common, 818 F.3d 323, 331 (7th Cir. 2016) (court must\\nfirst determine “whether the remarks by the prosecutor were\\nimproper when viewed in isolation,” and if so, the court will\\nthen “evaluate them in the context of the entire record and\\ndetermine whether defendant was deprived of a fair trial.”)\\n(citation and internal quotation marks omitted). We have ex-\\nplained: “As a general matter, improper comments during\\nclosing argument rarely rise to the level of reversible error,\\n\\f14 Nos. 18-1356 & 18-1519\\n\\nand considerable discretion is entrusted to the district court\\nto supervise the arguments of counsel.” United States v. Wil-\\nson, 985 F.2d 348, 353 (7th Cir. 1993) (citation and internal quo-\\ntation marks omitted); see also United States v. Berg, 640 F.3d\\n239, 253 (7th Cir. 2011).\\n There was no abuse of discretion here, let alone a plain er-\\nror. Lawyers sometimes are not as precise as they should be\\nwhen giving extemporaneous closing arguments. Even with-\\nout an objection, trial judges have the power to intervene if\\nthey believe that language has strayed too far from the\\nstraight and narrow, as the judge did here. To determine the\\neffect of prosecutorial comments on the fairness of the trial,\\nwe consider: “(1) the nature and seriousness of the alleged\\nmisconduct; (2) whether the defense invited the prosecutor’s\\nstatements; (3) whether the jury instructions adequately ad-\\ndressed the matter; (4) whether the defense had an oppor-\\ntunity to respond to the improper remarks; and (5) the weight\\nof the evidence against the defendant.” United States v. Klemis,\\n859 F.3d 436, 442 (7th Cir. 2017). This minor misstatement of\\nthe standard, which Judge Conley corrected immediately, did\\nnot deprive Thomas of his right to a fair trial. The jury instruc-\\ntions used the proper standard, and, given the evidence that\\nThompson brandished a gun to terrify the robbery victims,\\nnuances about the standards for intimidation were unlikely to\\nhave affected the verdict.\\n D. Speedy Trial\\n The Sixth Amendment guarantees the accused “the right\\nto a speedy and public trial.” In determining whether a pre-\\ntrial delay violates the Speedy Trial Clause, we consider: “(1)\\nthe length of the delay, (2) the reason for the delay, (3) the de-\\nfendant’s assertion of his speedy trial right, and (4) the\\n\\fNos. 18-1356 & 18-1519 15\\n\\nprejudice to the defendant caused by the delay.” United States\\nv. Koller, 956 F.2d 1408, 1413 (7th Cir. 1992), citing Barker v.\\nWingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530 (1972). Thomas claims that he was\\ndenied this right because his trial occurred almost eighteen\\nmonths after his indictment. He contends that his convictions\\nshould therefore be vacated. Thomas did not raise this consti-\\ntutional argument in the district court, so again we review\\nonly for plain error. See, e.g., United States v. O’Connor, 656\\nF.3d 630, 643 (7th Cir. 2011).4\\n “Delays of more than one year are considered presump-\\ntively prejudicial,” but the presumption may be rebutted. Id.\\nThe delays here were for legitimate reasons, and Thomas is\\nhard-pressed to point us to any actual prejudice he suffered.\\nThomas concedes that 281 days of the delay are not attributa-\\nble to the government and are not an issue. This period in-\\ncludes the 161 days from his indictment until Thomas himself\\nfiled an unopposed motion to move the trial date. It also in-\\ncludes the next 120 days, from Thomas’s motion to move the\\ntrial date until the conflict of interest arose with Thompson’s\\ncounsel. The period at issue is the following 242 days, from\\nthe date of the hearing on the conflict, when the district court\\ndenied Thomas’s request to keep his February 2017 trial date,\\nuntil the date of his trial (October 16, 2017). Thomas seeks to\\nattribute these 242 days of delay to the government.\\n This eight-month delay was unfortunate but justified. An\\nissue arose when the government sought to question a wit-\\nness who was also represented by Thompson’s counsel, cre-\\nating an irreconcilable conflict of interest. The district court\\n\\n\\n 4\\n Thomas objected to postponing the trial, but he did not raise a Sixth\\nAmendment challenge.\\n\\f16 Nos. 18-1356 & 18-1519\\n\\naccepted the government’s judgment that the prospective wit-\\nness’s testimony was important. The postponement was nec-\\nessary for Thompson to obtain new counsel, and the court\\nviewed the delay as “nobody’s fault,” but rather “one of those\\nirreconcilable conflicts” that required a continuance. We\\nagree. While unfortunate, this sort of delay sometimes just\\nhappens with multiple defendants.\\n Thomas objected to the continuance and sought a trial sep-\\narate from Thompson without further delay. That would have\\nbeen a permissible response to the problem, but the govern-\\nment responded with a legitimate objection of its own, saying\\nthat it could not “put the [bank] tellers through two trials,”\\ngiven their psychological trauma. The district court “easily”\\ndetermined that given the “nature of the government’s wit-\\nnesses,” it would not put them through two trials. The gov-\\nernment also explained that the delay was not ideal for the\\ngovernment itself because the bank-teller eyewitnesses, who\\nhad been traumatized by the robbery, were hoping to get the\\ntrial over with. These were all legitimate considerations in de-\\nciding how to solve an unexpected problem with no ideal so-\\nlution.\\n We recognize that the delay meant that Thomas spent an\\nadditional eight months in pretrial detention. But the Su-\\npreme Court in Barker v. Wingo found that a total of ten\\nmonths of detention before trial did not rise to the level of se-\\nrious prejudice. 407 U.S. at 530 & 534; see Koller, 956 F.2d at\\n1414–15 (finding no Sixth Amendment violation where ac-\\ncused spent months in pretrial detention while government\\nwitness recovered from heart surgery). Thomas has failed to\\ndemonstrate any significant impairment in his defense as a\\nresult of the delay. He speculates that, but for the delay,\\n\\fNos. 18-1356 & 18-1519 17\\n\\nThompson might not have decided to plead guilty and agree\\nto testify against him. Perhaps, but we have explained that the\\nfact that “the government was able to strengthen its case\\nagainst [the defendant] during the delay … is not relevant to\\nthe prejudice analysis.” United States v. Gearhart, 576 F.3d 459,\\n463 (7th Cir. 2009). The delay here did not violate the Speedy\\nTrial Clause of the Sixth Amendment.\\n E. Jury Instructions\\n Finally, Thomas argues that we should vacate his seven-\\nyear sentence on Count Two for aiding and abetting the bran-\\ndishing of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of vio-\\nlence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) because the court erred\\nin its jury instructions.5 Thomas contends that the jury was\\nnot adequately instructed on the government’s burden to\\nprove he had advance knowledge that Thompson would\\nbrandish a firearm during the robbery. Thomas did not raise\\nthis issue in the district court, so he faces an “uphill battle”\\nunder plain-error review. See United States v. Wheeler, 540 F.3d\\n683, 689 (7th Cir. 2008). Regardless, the jury instructions here\\nwere not erroneous.\\n Section 924(c) provides that “any person who, during and\\nin relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime\\n\\n 5 A “crime of violence” is defined as “an offense that is a felony and—\\n\\n(A) has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical\\nforce against the person or property of another, or (B) that by its nature,\\ninvolves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or prop-\\nerty of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.” 18\\nU.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A) & (B). The Supreme Court has now invalidated sub-\\nparagraph (B)—the residual clause—as unconstitutionally vague. United\\nStates v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319, 2336 (2019). That decision does not affect\\nthis case. The bank-robbery count is covered by subparagraph (A).\\n\\f18 Nos. 18-1356 & 18-1519\\n\\n… uses or carries a firearm,” is subject to a five-year statutory-\\nminimum consecutive sentence. 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) &\\n(D)(ii). The minimum consecutive sentence is increased to\\nseven years “if the firearm is brandished.” § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii).\\nUnder 18 U.S.C. § 2, a defendant who “aids, abets, counsels,\\ncommands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable\\nas a principal.” To apply the brandishing enhancement to\\nThomas, the jury needed to find beyond a reasonable doubt\\nthat Thomas knew in advance not only that Thompson would\\nbe carrying a firearm but also that he would be brandishing\\nit. United States v. Armour, 840 F.3d 904, 911 (7th Cir. 2016).\\n The jury instructions here properly conveyed the govern-\\nment’s burden to prove advance knowledge of brandishing to\\ntrigger the seven-year statutory-minimum sentence.\\nThomas’s main argument is that the district court did not re-\\npeat the advance knowledge requirement in the instructions\\non the special verdict form. But the special verdict form tied\\nits question directly to the instructions for Count Two, which\\nproperly included the advance knowledge requirement. A\\nreasonable juror would not have understood this special ver-\\ndict form to have dispensed with the advance knowledge re-\\nquirement set forth clearly in the instructions for Count Two.\\nThe point of the special verdict form was to make sure there\\nwas unanimity on brandishing (as opposed to simply using\\nor carrying). In no way did the form take away anything from\\nthe instructions to Count Two. It merely added this additional\\nsafeguard. The district court did not err in instructing the jury,\\nlet alone plainly err.\\n Thompson’s appeal (No. 18-1519) is DISMISSED. The dis-\\ntrict court’s judgment in Thomas’s case (No. 18-1356) is\\nAFFIRMED.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4422299/\", \"author_raw\": \"David Frank Hamilton\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"EASTERBROOK"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"KANNE"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"HAMILTON"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"EASTERBROOK\": \", Circuit\", \"KANNE\": \", Circuit\", \"HAMILTON\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645046/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":8,"string":"8"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: United States v. Julian Thomas\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-08-01\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-1356\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\n v.\n\nJULIAN THOMAS,\n Defendant-Appellant.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Western District of Wisconsin.\n No. 16-CR-00044-wmc-1 — William M. Conley, Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED MARCH 27, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 1, 2019\n ____________________\n\nNo. 18-1519\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\n\n v.\n\nJAMES THOMPSON,\n Defendant-Appellant.\n ____________________\n\f2 Nos. 18-1356 & 18-1519\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Western District of Wisconsin.\n No. 16-CR-00044-wmc-2 — William M. Conley, Judge.\n ____________________\n\n SUBMITTED MARCH 27, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 1, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before EASTERBROOK, KANNE, and HAMILTON, Circuit\nJudges.\n HAMILTON, Circuit Judge. A federal grand jury indicted de-\nfendants Julian Thomas and James Thompson for robbing a\nbank. Count One charged them with armed bank robbery in\nviolation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d). Count Two charged\nthem with using and carrying a firearm by brandishing it dur-\ning and in relation to a crime of violence in violation of 18\nU.S.C. § 924(c). A joint trial was scheduled but then delayed—\nfirst at Thomas’s request, and then again because Thompson’s\ncounsel faced an irreconcilable conflict of interest because of\na newly discovered witness for the government. Shortly be-\nfore the delayed trial, however, Thompson pleaded guilty and\nagreed to testify for the government against Thomas. Thomas\nwent to trial. The jury found him guilty on both counts and\nalso returned a special verdict finding that Thomas aided\nThompson’s brandishing of a firearm in the bank robbery.\nThe district court sentenced Thomas to thirteen years in\nprison for the bank robbery and a consecutive seven years (the\nstatutory minimum) for aiding and abetting Thompson’s\nbrandishing.\n Both defendants have appealed, but Thompson’s attorney\nhas filed an Anders brief explaining that he does not believe\nThompson has any viable arguments on appeal. We agree and\n\fNos. 18-1356 & 18-1519 3\n\ndismiss that appeal, No. 18-1519.1 Thomas contends on appeal\nthat certain evidence and argument at his trial were improper,\nthat the delay between his indictment and his trial violated\nthe Speedy Trial Clause of the Sixth Amendment, and that the\njury instructions for 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) were erroneous.\nThomas failed to raise all but one of these issues in the district\ncourt. We affirm his convictions and sentence in No. 18-1356.\nI. Factual & Procedural Background\n Thomas and Thompson were convicted of robbing the\nPeoples Community Bank in Plain, a small town in Sauk\nCounty, Wisconsin. The evidence at Thomas’s trial showed\nthat he had been planning a bank robbery for some time.\nThompson so testified, and he explained that Thomas had\ntold him they would enter the bank and Thompson would\nmonitor the bank’s tellers while Thomas would enter the\nvault with the bank’s manager. They would then escape with\na white female getaway driver.2\n\n 1 Thompson does not challenge the validity of his guilty plea, which\nallowed him to avoid a mandatory life sentence. He was sentenced to ten\nyears for the bank robbery and a consecutive seven years for brandishing\nthe firearm. Neither his counsel nor we see any arguable procedural or\nsubstantive error in the sentence. Thompson received his counsel’s Anders\nbrief and submitted no response identifying any issues he wished to pur-\nsue on appeal, as he could have under Circuit Rule 51(b).\n 2 Robert Lynn, who was in the Dane County Jail with Thomas in\nMarch 2014, testified that Thomas had told him he planned to rob a bank\nin Plain by “pistol-whip[ping] some old ladies” to “keep the first respond-\ners busy.” James Britton testified that as early as 2012 or 2013, Thomas had\ntalked of his plan to rob a bank in a small town. Britton also testified that\nThomas had solicited his help to find an accomplice and that Britton had\nconnected Thomas with Thompson and received some of the robbery pro-\nceeds.\n\f4 Nos. 18-1356 & 18-1519\n\n That is what actually happened. On the day of the robbery,\nThomas and Beth Manbauman (who was being paid in her-\noin) picked Thompson up at a bus stop. Thomas provided\nThompson with a mask and loaded handgun. Thompson put\nthe gun in his pocket. As Thompson and Thomas waited in an\nalley outside the bank, Thompson removed the handgun\nfrom his pocket. The two then ran into the bank. Both wore\nmasks. Thompson pointed the gun at the bank’s tellers.\nThompson got two tellers to empty their cash drawers while\nThomas forced the bank’s manager to open the vault. They\nfled with approximately $60,000 in a car driven by Manbau-\nman.\n The government introduced evidence showing that on the\nday of the robbery, both Thompson and Manbauman had\ncommunicated with a particular telephone number. The num-\nber was registered to “Frank Smith” in Irvine, California, but\nThompson testified that the number was listed in his tele-\nphone as belonging to “Juice,” which was Thomas’s nick-\nname. Other witnesses testified that Thomas went by the nick-\nname “Juice.” The government was aware that Thomas would\ntry to impeach Thompson’s credibility, so the government\ncalled Thomas’s probation officer, Michael Ellestad, who tes-\ntified that he had used that same telephone number to contact\nThomas while supervising him between November 2014 and\nJune 2015.\n The government also introduced evidence that Thomas\nhad a friend register as the straw owner of a used Mercedes\nBenz automobile that he bought days after the robbery. Before\ntrial, the court ruled that the government could introduce a\nrecording of a telephone call Thomas made while in pretrial\ndetention in which he said the car was worth $30,000. The lead\n\fNos. 18-1356 & 18-1519 5\n\ncase detective testified on cross-examination by the defense\nthat he had listened to that telephone call.\n Thomas did not call any witnesses but introduced three\nexhibits. The defense theory was that James Britton, not\nThomas, committed the robbery with Thompson. During\nclosing arguments, according to Thomas, the prosecutor mis-\nled the jury by repeatedly using the word “you” while ex-\nplaining the reasonable-person standard for “intimidation”\nunder 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). Without an objection from Thomas,\nthe district court corrected the government in front of the jury,\nexplaining that the inquiry is an objective one.\n The district court instructed the jury on the elements of the\ntwo counts against Thomas. Only the instructions for the fire-\narm charge in Count Two are at issue in this appeal. The court\ninstructed that a verdict of guilty on an aiding-and-abetting\ntheory of liability required proof beyond a reasonable doubt\nthat Thomas “knew before the bank robbery that James\nThompson was going to use, carry, or brandish a firearm dur-\ning and in relation to the bank robbery charged in Count 1,”\nand that “[o]nce [Thomas] knew this, he intentionally facili-\ntated” it. The court instructed the jurors that a guilty verdict\nwould require that they “agree on at least one of these three\nways”—using, carrying, or brandishing—“that James\nThompson employed the firearm during the bank robbery.”\nThe court included a special verdict form asking whether\nThomas aided Thompson’s brandishing of a firearm, explain-\ning: “The reason you’re being asked this question is to make\ncertain that even if you found someone guilty of Count 2 …\nyou all agree brandishing occurred.” This finding was neces-\nsary to apply the statutory enhancement for brandishing. See\n18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). When the jury asked a question\n\f6 Nos. 18-1356 & 18-1519\n\nwhile deliberating, the court told them that “aid,” “aids,” or\n“aiding” have their ordinary meanings.\n The jury found Thomas guilty of both counts and an-\nswered yes to the special verdict question on brandishing. The\ndistrict court sentenced Thomas to thirteen years in prison for\nthe bank robbery charge and a consecutive sentence of seven\nyears (the statutory minimum) for aiding and abetting\nThompson’s brandishing of the firearm.\nII. Discussion\n Thomas raises five issues on appeal. Three relate to evi-\ndence and argument at trial: (A) the admission of Thomas’s\nprobation officer’s testimony that he used a particular tele-\nphone number to contact Thomas; (B) the admission of the\ntelephone call Thomas made while in pretrial detention say-\ning that he purchased a car worth $30,000 after the bank rob-\nbery; and (C) the government’s use of the word “you” instead\nof “reasonable person” in its closing argument to describe the\ninquiry for intimidation. The other two issues are (D) the\nSpeedy Trial Clause claim and (E) a challenge to the jury in-\nstructions for accomplice liability for brandishing a firearm\nduring and in relation to a crime of violence.\n When a defendant has objected to the admission of evi-\ndence, we review the district court’s decision for an abuse of\ndiscretion. United States v. Quiroz, 874 F.3d 562, 569 (7th Cir.\n2017); United States v. Gorman, 613 F.3d 711, 717 (7th Cir. 2010).\nWe generally review the legal accuracy of jury instructions de\nnovo, while deferring to a district court’s discretion in the spe-\ncific phrasing. See United States v. McClellan, 794 F.3d 743, 753\n(7th Cir. 2015). But when a defendant fails to object to a po-\ntential evidentiary error or jury instruction in the district\n\fNos. 18-1356 & 18-1519 7\n\ncourt, these forfeited objections are reviewed only for plain\nerror. See United States v. Ambrose, 668 F.3d 943, 963 (7th Cir.\n2012) (evidence); United States v. Lawson, 810 F.3d 1032, 1040\n(7th Cir. 2016) (jury instructions); Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b) (“A\nplain error that affects substantial rights may be considered\neven though it was not brought to the court’s attention.”). On\nplain-error review, we may reverse if: (1) an error occurred,\n(2) the error was plain, (3) it affected the defendant’s substan-\ntial rights, and (4) it seriously affected the fairness, integrity,\nor public reputation of the proceedings. United States v. Olano,\n507 U.S. 725, 732–38 (1993); United States v. Pierson, 925 F.3d\n913, 919 (7th Cir. 2019). In the district court, Thomas objected\nonly to the admission of the telephone call discussing the\n$30,000 car, so we review the district court’s decision to admit\nit under an abuse of discretion standard. We review all other\nissues only for plain error.\n A. Testimony of the Probation Officer\n The government called Thomas’s probation officer to tes-\ntify that he used a specific telephone number to contact\nThomas in supervising him on probation. The Federal Rules\nof Evidence sharply restrict admission of an accused defend-\nant’s prior convictions. E.g., Fed. R. Evid. 404, 609. The re-\nstrictions are designed to ensure that a defendant is convicted\nbased on the evidence relevant to the charged offenses, not a\nsupposed propensity to commit crimes based on evidence of\nprior convictions. See United States v. Gomez, 763 F.3d 845,\n855–56 (7th Cir. 2014) (en banc); United States v. Beck, 625 F.3d\n410, 416 (7th Cir. 2010). We have repeatedly cautioned trial\ncourts to consider carefully the introduction of previous con-\nvictions. See, e.g., Beck, 625 F.3d at 416, citing United States v.\nTaylor, 522 F.3d 731, 732–33 (7th Cir. 2008).\n\f8 Nos. 18-1356 & 18-1519\n\n In this case, there was not an explicit statement that\nThomas was previously convicted of a crime, but we assume\njurors would understand that a person on probation has pre-\nviously been convicted of a crime. The testimony of Officer\nEllestad that he used the telephone number to contact Thomas\ncould establish Thomas’s identity and connection to the tele-\nphone number, which is a permissible purpose under Rule\n404(b). Yet, in response to a proper objection, the district court\nwould still need to weigh its probative value against the risk\nof unfair prejudice under Rules 403 and 404(b). Taylor, 522\nF.3d at 732–33.\n Without an objection, the district court did not plainly err\nin admitting Officer Ellestad’s testimony. The testimony was\nrelevant to show that the telephone number belonged to\nThomas and that he used the number to coordinate with\nThompson and Manbauman. Thomas disputed his involve-\nment in the planning and execution of the robbery. He also\ndisputed Thompson’s testimony explaining that he commu-\nnicated with Thomas using that telephone number. The cor-\nroborating testimony of Thomas’s probation officer—includ-\ning his job title, which established that he clearly knew how\nto get in touch with Thomas—had significant probative value.\n When a defendant objects to evidence that will put the fact\nof a prior conviction before the jury, the trial judge should\nconsider whether other evidence might serve the same pur-\npose and should weigh probative value against the risk of un-\nfair prejudice. See United States v. Loughry, 660 F.3d 965, 974\n(7th Cir. 2011) (“availability of other means of proof is an ap-\npropriate factor to consider in determining the relevance of an\nitem of evidence”), citing Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S.\n172, 182–84 (1997). If Thomas had been willing to stipulate\n\fNos. 18-1356 & 18-1519 9\n\nthat the telephone number was his, there would have been no\nreason to introduce his probation officer’s testimony. But\nThomas disputed whether the number belonged to him. That\nwas his right, of course, but the government was entitled to\noffer evidence to corroborate Thompson’s testimony tying\nThomas to the telephone number.\n Also, the risk of unfair prejudice here was reduced. The\njury was already aware through other, proper evidence that\nThomas had a criminal history. The defense itself referred to\nThomas’s criminal history multiple times. The defense noted\nThomas’s prior incarceration with government witness Rob-\nert Lynn in its opening statement. See Trial Tr. I-120 (“You’ll\nalso hear that Detective Sabol finds out a couple months after\nthe robbery that Mr. Thomas was in jail with a guy named\nRobert Lynn. … They were in jail together the spring be-\nfore.”). Thomas did not object to the introduction of Lynn’s\ntestimony later in the trial. The defense’s opening statement\nalso acknowledged:\n During this trial you will learn that Mr. Thomas\n is not a squeaky clean guy. We are not going to\n try to pretend he’s something he’s not. He hangs\n out with unsavory characters. Sometimes he\n sells drugs to get by. Sometimes he steals credit\n cards, forgery, makes his money that way, stuff\n like that.\nIn closing argument, the defense reiterated:\n I know that Mr. Thomas is not a great guy. …\n That’s not what makes him guilty of robbery.\n Because those other bad acts, that evidence that,\n like, “Hey, man, you’re with some unsavory\n\f10 Nos. 18-1356 & 18-1519\n\n folks. You’re a heroin dealer. You know, youʹre\n the kind of guy that steals iPads and does credit\n card fraud. You are a despicable human be-\n ing”—if the charge was you’re a despicable hu-\n man being, go for it, guilty, guilty, but it’s not.\n Given these references from the defense, Officer Ellestad’s\nreference to being Thomas’s probation officer was not un-\nfairly prejudicial and did not outweigh the probative value of\nhis testimony. See Fed. R. Evid. 403. Thomas’s criminal past\n“was already before the jury,” and the likelihood that this as-\npect of Officer Ellestad’s testimony “had any effect on the jury\nis negligible.” United States v. Courtright, 632 F.3d 363, 370 (7th\nCir. 2011). We doubt there was any error, and there certainly\nwas no plain error, in admitting this testimony.\n B. The $30,000 Car Telephone Call\n Before trial, the government informed the court that it\nwould offer a recording of a telephone call Thomas made\nwhile in pretrial detention in which he said that a Mercedes\nBenz he bought shortly after the robbery was worth $30,000.\nThomas objected to this evidence, so we review the court’s\ndecision to admit it for an abuse of discretion. United States v.\nCunningham, 462 F.3d 708, 712 (7th Cir. 2006). While this is not\nthe plain-error standard, this standard is still deferential.\nUnited States v. Ozuna, 561 F.3d 728, 738 (7th Cir. 2009).\n This issue has become a bit muddled factually. Shortly be-\nfore oral argument on appeal, the government filed a letter\nexplaining that the portion of this telephone call referring to\nthe supposed $30,000 value of the car was “unintentionally\ndeleted … from the recordings presented to the jury.” The ju-\nrors heard only the portions of the recording where Thomas\n\fNos. 18-1356 & 18-1519 11\n\ndescribed the Mercedes as a “luxury car” that should run on\npremium gas. In its opening statement, however, the govern-\nment told the jury that it would hear about “jail phone calls”\nin which Thomas said that the Mercedes was “all paid for and\nthat it cost him $30,000.” Later in the trial, the defense on\ncross-examination asked the lead case detective: “You heard\nin a telephone call that Mr. Thomas said the car was worth\n$30,000, correct?” The detective answered “Yes.” Since the\nchallenged $30,000 statement was never actually played, the\njury heard about it only in the government’s opening and the\ndefense’s cross-examination of the detective. These discrep-\nancies were not raised in the district court. We believe the\nmost prudent way to proceed in this appeal is to review the\ndistrict court’s ruling to admit the $30,000 statement as if the\nstatement had been included in the recording played for the\njury as part of the evidence.\n The district court did not abuse its discretion in deciding\nto admit this evidence. Thomas argues that the admission of\nthis recording was cumulative because other evidence al-\nready indicated that he bought the Mercedes Benz shortly af-\nter the bank robbery. But Thomas would not stipulate to the\nvalue of the car being $30,000, and at trial he asked questions\nof witnesses suggesting, and argued in closing, that the value\nwas much less.3 The government wanted to introduce this\nstatement because $30,000 was roughly half of the proceeds of\nthe bank robbery. The value of the car was disputed and\nsomewhat relevant, and Thomas’s statement was not\n\n 3 While questioning the detective, Thomas noted that the car had\n149,800 miles on it and “had been shot up”—suggesting that “a car that’s\nbeen shot by a gun tends to depreciate in value” and would not be worth\n$30,000. We express no opinion on the actual value of the car.\n\f12 Nos. 18-1356 & 18-1519\n\ncumulative because it was the only evidence of the supposed\n$30,000 value of the car.\n Thomas also argues that the reference to the “jail phone\ncall” was unfairly prejudicial, but for reasons similar to those\ndiscussed above regarding his probation officer, the reference\nto his pretrial detention would have added little if anything\nto what the jury already knew about him. We have explained\nthat a defendant “may have been somewhat prejudiced” by\nthe admission of recordings of telephone calls he made while\nawaiting trial, but “the occasional reference to the fact that\n[the defendant] had at some point been in jail” while awaiting\ntrial is unlikely “to undermine the presumption of innocence\nand the defendant’s right to a fair trial.” United States v. John-\nson, 624 F.3d 815, 821–22 (7th Cir. 2010).\n As with Officer Ellestad’s testimony, discussed above, if\nThomas had stipulated to the supposed $30,000 value of the\ncar, the government would not have had a good reason to in-\ntroduce this evidence. See Loughry, 660 F.3d at 974. The dis-\ntrict court gave Thomas the opportunity to so stipulate, but he\nrefused—again, as he was perfectly entitled to. But without a\nstipulation, this recording was the government’s only evi-\ndence as to the supposed $30,000 value of the car. The value\nof the car was disputed, and the jail telephone call was neither\ncumulative nor unfairly prejudicial. The district court did not\nabuse its discretion by deciding to allow evidence of\nThomas’s statement that the Mercedes was worth $30,000.\n C. “You” in the Government’s Closing Argument\n For Count I—the bank-robbery offense—the government\nwas required to prove that the money was taken from the\nbank “by force and violence, or by intimidation.” 18 U.S.C.\n\fNos. 18-1356 & 18-1519 13\n\n§ 2113(a). “Intimidation exists when a bank robber’s words\nand actions would cause an ordinary person to feel threat-\nened, by giving rise to a reasonable fear that resistance or de-\nfiance will be met with force.” United States v. Gordon, 642 F.3d\n596, 598 (7th Cir. 2011). The district court instructed the jury\nto that effect: “the term ‘intimidation’ means to say or do\nsomething that would make a reasonable person feel threat-\nened under the circumstances.”\n In its closing argument, the government used language\ndescribing this standard sometimes as objective and some-\ntimes as subjective—referring sometimes to a “reasonable\nperson” but also to “you,” arguably asking the jurors to think\nabout how they themselves would have felt. The district court\nfirmly corrected the prosecutor in front of the jury: “This is\nthe second time you violated the golden rule. It’s not for you\nto decide what you personally would feel. It is what a reason-\nable person would feel, and I don’t want you to do it again.”\nThe government apologized and explained to the jury: “So the\njudge is right. It’s not what—it’s the reasonable person stand-\nard, and you have to do the reasonable person standard.”\n Even if the prosecutor’s language may have been im-\nproper, the court immediately corrected it. Thomas raised no\nobjection, and he was not deprived of a fair trial. See United\nStates v. Common, 818 F.3d 323, 331 (7th Cir. 2016) (court must\nfirst determine “whether the remarks by the prosecutor were\nimproper when viewed in isolation,” and if so, the court will\nthen “evaluate them in the context of the entire record and\ndetermine whether defendant was deprived of a fair trial.”)\n(citation and internal quotation marks omitted). We have ex-\nplained: “As a general matter, improper comments during\nclosing argument rarely rise to the level of reversible error,\n\f14 Nos. 18-1356 & 18-1519\n\nand considerable discretion is entrusted to the district court\nto supervise the arguments of counsel.” United States v. Wil-\nson, 985 F.2d 348, 353 (7th Cir. 1993) (citation and internal quo-\ntation marks omitted); see also United States v. Berg, 640 F.3d\n239, 253 (7th Cir. 2011).\n There was no abuse of discretion here, let alone a plain er-\nror. Lawyers sometimes are not as precise as they should be\nwhen giving extemporaneous closing arguments. Even with-\nout an objection, trial judges have the power to intervene if\nthey believe that language has strayed too far from the\nstraight and narrow, as the judge did here. To determine the\neffect of prosecutorial comments on the fairness of the trial,\nwe consider: “(1) the nature and seriousness of the alleged\nmisconduct; (2) whether the defense invited the prosecutor’s\nstatements; (3) whether the jury instructions adequately ad-\ndressed the matter; (4) whether the defense had an oppor-\ntunity to respond to the improper remarks; and (5) the weight\nof the evidence against the defendant.” United States v. Klemis,\n859 F.3d 436, 442 (7th Cir. 2017). This minor misstatement of\nthe standard, which Judge Conley corrected immediately, did\nnot deprive Thomas of his right to a fair trial. The jury instruc-\ntions used the proper standard, and, given the evidence that\nThompson brandished a gun to terrify the robbery victims,\nnuances about the standards for intimidation were unlikely to\nhave affected the verdict.\n D. Speedy Trial\n The Sixth Amendment guarantees the accused “the right\nto a speedy and public trial.” In determining whether a pre-\ntrial delay violates the Speedy Trial Clause, we consider: “(1)\nthe length of the delay, (2) the reason for the delay, (3) the de-\nfendant’s assertion of his speedy trial right, and (4) the\n\fNos. 18-1356 & 18-1519 15\n\nprejudice to the defendant caused by the delay.” United States\nv. Koller, 956 F.2d 1408, 1413 (7th Cir. 1992), citing Barker v.\nWingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530 (1972). Thomas claims that he was\ndenied this right because his trial occurred almost eighteen\nmonths after his indictment. He contends that his convictions\nshould therefore be vacated. Thomas did not raise this consti-\ntutional argument in the district court, so again we review\nonly for plain error. See, e.g., United States v. O’Connor, 656\nF.3d 630, 643 (7th Cir. 2011).4\n “Delays of more than one year are considered presump-\ntively prejudicial,” but the presumption may be rebutted. Id.\nThe delays here were for legitimate reasons, and Thomas is\nhard-pressed to point us to any actual prejudice he suffered.\nThomas concedes that 281 days of the delay are not attributa-\nble to the government and are not an issue. This period in-\ncludes the 161 days from his indictment until Thomas himself\nfiled an unopposed motion to move the trial date. It also in-\ncludes the next 120 days, from Thomas’s motion to move the\ntrial date until the conflict of interest arose with Thompson’s\ncounsel. The period at issue is the following 242 days, from\nthe date of the hearing on the conflict, when the district court\ndenied Thomas’s request to keep his February 2017 trial date,\nuntil the date of his trial (October 16, 2017). Thomas seeks to\nattribute these 242 days of delay to the government.\n This eight-month delay was unfortunate but justified. An\nissue arose when the government sought to question a wit-\nness who was also represented by Thompson’s counsel, cre-\nating an irreconcilable conflict of interest. The district court\n\n\n 4\n Thomas objected to postponing the trial, but he did not raise a Sixth\nAmendment challenge.\n\f16 Nos. 18-1356 & 18-1519\n\naccepted the government’s judgment that the prospective wit-\nness’s testimony was important. The postponement was nec-\nessary for Thompson to obtain new counsel, and the court\nviewed the delay as “nobody’s fault,” but rather “one of those\nirreconcilable conflicts” that required a continuance. We\nagree. While unfortunate, this sort of delay sometimes just\nhappens with multiple defendants.\n Thomas objected to the continuance and sought a trial sep-\narate from Thompson without further delay. That would have\nbeen a permissible response to the problem, but the govern-\nment responded with a legitimate objection of its own, saying\nthat it could not “put the [bank] tellers through two trials,”\ngiven their psychological trauma. The district court “easily”\ndetermined that given the “nature of the government’s wit-\nnesses,” it would not put them through two trials. The gov-\nernment also explained that the delay was not ideal for the\ngovernment itself because the bank-teller eyewitnesses, who\nhad been traumatized by the robbery, were hoping to get the\ntrial over with. These were all legitimate considerations in de-\nciding how to solve an unexpected problem with no ideal so-\nlution.\n We recognize that the delay meant that Thomas spent an\nadditional eight months in pretrial detention. But the Su-\npreme Court in Barker v. Wingo found that a total of ten\nmonths of detention before trial did not rise to the level of se-\nrious prejudice. 407 U.S. at 530 & 534; see Koller, 956 F.2d at\n1414–15 (finding no Sixth Amendment violation where ac-\ncused spent months in pretrial detention while government\nwitness recovered from heart surgery). Thomas has failed to\ndemonstrate any significant impairment in his defense as a\nresult of the delay. He speculates that, but for the delay,\n\fNos. 18-1356 & 18-1519 17\n\nThompson might not have decided to plead guilty and agree\nto testify against him. Perhaps, but we have explained that the\nfact that “the government was able to strengthen its case\nagainst [the defendant] during the delay … is not relevant to\nthe prejudice analysis.” United States v. Gearhart, 576 F.3d 459,\n463 (7th Cir. 2009). The delay here did not violate the Speedy\nTrial Clause of the Sixth Amendment.\n E. Jury Instructions\n Finally, Thomas argues that we should vacate his seven-\nyear sentence on Count Two for aiding and abetting the bran-\ndishing of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of vio-\nlence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) because the court erred\nin its jury instructions.5 Thomas contends that the jury was\nnot adequately instructed on the government’s burden to\nprove he had advance knowledge that Thompson would\nbrandish a firearm during the robbery. Thomas did not raise\nthis issue in the district court, so he faces an “uphill battle”\nunder plain-error review. See United States v. Wheeler, 540 F.3d\n683, 689 (7th Cir. 2008). Regardless, the jury instructions here\nwere not erroneous.\n Section 924(c) provides that “any person who, during and\nin relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime\n\n 5 A “crime of violence” is defined as “an offense that is a felony and—\n\n(A) has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical\nforce against the person or property of another, or (B) that by its nature,\ninvolves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or prop-\nerty of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.” 18\nU.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A) & (B). The Supreme Court has now invalidated sub-\nparagraph (B)—the residual clause—as unconstitutionally vague. United\nStates v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319, 2336 (2019). That decision does not affect\nthis case. The bank-robbery count is covered by subparagraph (A).\n\f18 Nos. 18-1356 & 18-1519\n\n… uses or carries a firearm,” is subject to a five-year statutory-\nminimum consecutive sentence. 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) &\n(D)(ii). The minimum consecutive sentence is increased to\nseven years “if the firearm is brandished.” § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii).\nUnder 18 U.S.C. § 2, a defendant who “aids, abets, counsels,\ncommands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable\nas a principal.” To apply the brandishing enhancement to\nThomas, the jury needed to find beyond a reasonable doubt\nthat Thomas knew in advance not only that Thompson would\nbe carrying a firearm but also that he would be brandishing\nit. United States v. Armour, 840 F.3d 904, 911 (7th Cir. 2016).\n The jury instructions here properly conveyed the govern-\nment’s burden to prove advance knowledge of brandishing to\ntrigger the seven-year statutory-minimum sentence.\nThomas’s main argument is that the district court did not re-\npeat the advance knowledge requirement in the instructions\non the special verdict form. But the special verdict form tied\nits question directly to the instructions for Count Two, which\nproperly included the advance knowledge requirement. A\nreasonable juror would not have understood this special ver-\ndict form to have dispensed with the advance knowledge re-\nquirement set forth clearly in the instructions for Count Two.\nThe point of the special verdict form was to make sure there\nwas unanimity on brandishing (as opposed to simply using\nor carrying). In no way did the form take away anything from\nthe instructions to Count Two. It merely added this additional\nsafeguard. The district court did not err in instructing the jury,\nlet alone plainly err.\n Thompson’s appeal (No. 18-1519) is DISMISSED. The dis-\ntrict court’s judgment in Thomas’s case (No. 18-1356) is\nAFFIRMED.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: United States v. Julian Thomas\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-08-01\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-1356\\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\\n v.\\n\\nJULIAN THOMAS,\\n Defendant-Appellant.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Western District of Wisconsin.\\n No. 16-CR-00044-wmc-1 — William M. Conley, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED MARCH 27, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 1, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\nNo. 18-1519\\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\\n\\n v.\\n\\nJAMES THOMPSON,\\n Defendant-Appellant.\\n ____________________\\n\\f2 Nos. 18-1356 & 18-1519\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Western District of Wisconsin.\\n No. 16-CR-00044-wmc-2 — William M. Conley, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n SUBMITTED MARCH 27, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 1, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before EASTERBROOK, KANNE, and HAMILTON, Circuit\\nJudges.\\n HAMILTON, Circuit Judge. A federal grand jury indicted de-\\nfendants Julian Thomas and James Thompson for robbing a\\nbank. Count One charged them with armed bank robbery in\\nviolation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d). Count Two charged\\nthem with using and carrying a firearm by brandishing it dur-\\ning and in relation to a crime of violence in violation of 18\\nU.S.C. § 924(c). A joint trial was scheduled but then delayed—\\nfirst at Thomas’s request, and then again because Thompson’s\\ncounsel faced an irreconcilable conflict of interest because of\\na newly discovered witness for the government. Shortly be-\\nfore the delayed trial, however, Thompson pleaded guilty and\\nagreed to testify for the government against Thomas. Thomas\\nwent to trial. The jury found him guilty on both counts and\\nalso returned a special verdict finding that Thomas aided\\nThompson’s brandishing of a firearm in the bank robbery.\\nThe district court sentenced Thomas to thirteen years in\\nprison for the bank robbery and a consecutive seven years (the\\nstatutory minimum) for aiding and abetting Thompson’s\\nbrandishing.\\n Both defendants have appealed, but Thompson’s attorney\\nhas filed an Anders brief explaining that he does not believe\\nThompson has any viable arguments on appeal. We agree and\\n\\fNos. 18-1356 & 18-1519 3\\n\\ndismiss that appeal, No. 18-1519.1 Thomas contends on appeal\\nthat certain evidence and argument at his trial were improper,\\nthat the delay between his indictment and his trial violated\\nthe Speedy Trial Clause of the Sixth Amendment, and that the\\njury instructions for 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) were erroneous.\\nThomas failed to raise all but one of these issues in the district\\ncourt. We affirm his convictions and sentence in No. 18-1356.\\nI. Factual & Procedural Background\\n Thomas and Thompson were convicted of robbing the\\nPeoples Community Bank in Plain, a small town in Sauk\\nCounty, Wisconsin. The evidence at Thomas’s trial showed\\nthat he had been planning a bank robbery for some time.\\nThompson so testified, and he explained that Thomas had\\ntold him they would enter the bank and Thompson would\\nmonitor the bank’s tellers while Thomas would enter the\\nvault with the bank’s manager. They would then escape with\\na white female getaway driver.2\\n\\n 1 Thompson does not challenge the validity of his guilty plea, which\\nallowed him to avoid a mandatory life sentence. He was sentenced to ten\\nyears for the bank robbery and a consecutive seven years for brandishing\\nthe firearm. Neither his counsel nor we see any arguable procedural or\\nsubstantive error in the sentence. Thompson received his counsel’s Anders\\nbrief and submitted no response identifying any issues he wished to pur-\\nsue on appeal, as he could have under Circuit Rule 51(b).\\n 2 Robert Lynn, who was in the Dane County Jail with Thomas in\\nMarch 2014, testified that Thomas had told him he planned to rob a bank\\nin Plain by “pistol-whip[ping] some old ladies” to “keep the first respond-\\ners busy.” James Britton testified that as early as 2012 or 2013, Thomas had\\ntalked of his plan to rob a bank in a small town. Britton also testified that\\nThomas had solicited his help to find an accomplice and that Britton had\\nconnected Thomas with Thompson and received some of the robbery pro-\\nceeds.\\n\\f4 Nos. 18-1356 & 18-1519\\n\\n That is what actually happened. On the day of the robbery,\\nThomas and Beth Manbauman (who was being paid in her-\\noin) picked Thompson up at a bus stop. Thomas provided\\nThompson with a mask and loaded handgun. Thompson put\\nthe gun in his pocket. As Thompson and Thomas waited in an\\nalley outside the bank, Thompson removed the handgun\\nfrom his pocket. The two then ran into the bank. Both wore\\nmasks. Thompson pointed the gun at the bank’s tellers.\\nThompson got two tellers to empty their cash drawers while\\nThomas forced the bank’s manager to open the vault. They\\nfled with approximately $60,000 in a car driven by Manbau-\\nman.\\n The government introduced evidence showing that on the\\nday of the robbery, both Thompson and Manbauman had\\ncommunicated with a particular telephone number. The num-\\nber was registered to “Frank Smith” in Irvine, California, but\\nThompson testified that the number was listed in his tele-\\nphone as belonging to “Juice,” which was Thomas’s nick-\\nname. Other witnesses testified that Thomas went by the nick-\\nname “Juice.” The government was aware that Thomas would\\ntry to impeach Thompson’s credibility, so the government\\ncalled Thomas’s probation officer, Michael Ellestad, who tes-\\ntified that he had used that same telephone number to contact\\nThomas while supervising him between November 2014 and\\nJune 2015.\\n The government also introduced evidence that Thomas\\nhad a friend register as the straw owner of a used Mercedes\\nBenz automobile that he bought days after the robbery. Before\\ntrial, the court ruled that the government could introduce a\\nrecording of a telephone call Thomas made while in pretrial\\ndetention in which he said the car was worth $30,000. The lead\\n\\fNos. 18-1356 & 18-1519 5\\n\\ncase detective testified on cross-examination by the defense\\nthat he had listened to that telephone call.\\n Thomas did not call any witnesses but introduced three\\nexhibits. The defense theory was that James Britton, not\\nThomas, committed the robbery with Thompson. During\\nclosing arguments, according to Thomas, the prosecutor mis-\\nled the jury by repeatedly using the word “you” while ex-\\nplaining the reasonable-person standard for “intimidation”\\nunder 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). Without an objection from Thomas,\\nthe district court corrected the government in front of the jury,\\nexplaining that the inquiry is an objective one.\\n The district court instructed the jury on the elements of the\\ntwo counts against Thomas. Only the instructions for the fire-\\narm charge in Count Two are at issue in this appeal. The court\\ninstructed that a verdict of guilty on an aiding-and-abetting\\ntheory of liability required proof beyond a reasonable doubt\\nthat Thomas “knew before the bank robbery that James\\nThompson was going to use, carry, or brandish a firearm dur-\\ning and in relation to the bank robbery charged in Count 1,”\\nand that “[o]nce [Thomas] knew this, he intentionally facili-\\ntated” it. The court instructed the jurors that a guilty verdict\\nwould require that they “agree on at least one of these three\\nways”—using, carrying, or brandishing—“that James\\nThompson employed the firearm during the bank robbery.”\\nThe court included a special verdict form asking whether\\nThomas aided Thompson’s brandishing of a firearm, explain-\\ning: “The reason you’re being asked this question is to make\\ncertain that even if you found someone guilty of Count 2 …\\nyou all agree brandishing occurred.” This finding was neces-\\nsary to apply the statutory enhancement for brandishing. See\\n18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). When the jury asked a question\\n\\f6 Nos. 18-1356 & 18-1519\\n\\nwhile deliberating, the court told them that “aid,” “aids,” or\\n“aiding” have their ordinary meanings.\\n The jury found Thomas guilty of both counts and an-\\nswered yes to the special verdict question on brandishing. The\\ndistrict court sentenced Thomas to thirteen years in prison for\\nthe bank robbery charge and a consecutive sentence of seven\\nyears (the statutory minimum) for aiding and abetting\\nThompson’s brandishing of the firearm.\\nII. Discussion\\n Thomas raises five issues on appeal. Three relate to evi-\\ndence and argument at trial: (A) the admission of Thomas’s\\nprobation officer’s testimony that he used a particular tele-\\nphone number to contact Thomas; (B) the admission of the\\ntelephone call Thomas made while in pretrial detention say-\\ning that he purchased a car worth $30,000 after the bank rob-\\nbery; and (C) the government’s use of the word “you” instead\\nof “reasonable person” in its closing argument to describe the\\ninquiry for intimidation. The other two issues are (D) the\\nSpeedy Trial Clause claim and (E) a challenge to the jury in-\\nstructions for accomplice liability for brandishing a firearm\\nduring and in relation to a crime of violence.\\n When a defendant has objected to the admission of evi-\\ndence, we review the district court’s decision for an abuse of\\ndiscretion. United States v. Quiroz, 874 F.3d 562, 569 (7th Cir.\\n2017); United States v. Gorman, 613 F.3d 711, 717 (7th Cir. 2010).\\nWe generally review the legal accuracy of jury instructions de\\nnovo, while deferring to a district court’s discretion in the spe-\\ncific phrasing. See United States v. McClellan, 794 F.3d 743, 753\\n(7th Cir. 2015). But when a defendant fails to object to a po-\\ntential evidentiary error or jury instruction in the district\\n\\fNos. 18-1356 & 18-1519 7\\n\\ncourt, these forfeited objections are reviewed only for plain\\nerror. See United States v. Ambrose, 668 F.3d 943, 963 (7th Cir.\\n2012) (evidence); United States v. Lawson, 810 F.3d 1032, 1040\\n(7th Cir. 2016) (jury instructions); Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b) (“A\\nplain error that affects substantial rights may be considered\\neven though it was not brought to the court’s attention.”). On\\nplain-error review, we may reverse if: (1) an error occurred,\\n(2) the error was plain, (3) it affected the defendant’s substan-\\ntial rights, and (4) it seriously affected the fairness, integrity,\\nor public reputation of the proceedings. United States v. Olano,\\n507 U.S. 725, 732–38 (1993); United States v. Pierson, 925 F.3d\\n913, 919 (7th Cir. 2019). In the district court, Thomas objected\\nonly to the admission of the telephone call discussing the\\n$30,000 car, so we review the district court’s decision to admit\\nit under an abuse of discretion standard. We review all other\\nissues only for plain error.\\n A. Testimony of the Probation Officer\\n The government called Thomas’s probation officer to tes-\\ntify that he used a specific telephone number to contact\\nThomas in supervising him on probation. The Federal Rules\\nof Evidence sharply restrict admission of an accused defend-\\nant’s prior convictions. E.g., Fed. R. Evid. 404, 609. The re-\\nstrictions are designed to ensure that a defendant is convicted\\nbased on the evidence relevant to the charged offenses, not a\\nsupposed propensity to commit crimes based on evidence of\\nprior convictions. See United States v. Gomez, 763 F.3d 845,\\n855–56 (7th Cir. 2014) (en banc); United States v. Beck, 625 F.3d\\n410, 416 (7th Cir. 2010). We have repeatedly cautioned trial\\ncourts to consider carefully the introduction of previous con-\\nvictions. See, e.g., Beck, 625 F.3d at 416, citing United States v.\\nTaylor, 522 F.3d 731, 732–33 (7th Cir. 2008).\\n\\f8 Nos. 18-1356 & 18-1519\\n\\n In this case, there was not an explicit statement that\\nThomas was previously convicted of a crime, but we assume\\njurors would understand that a person on probation has pre-\\nviously been convicted of a crime. The testimony of Officer\\nEllestad that he used the telephone number to contact Thomas\\ncould establish Thomas’s identity and connection to the tele-\\nphone number, which is a permissible purpose under Rule\\n404(b). Yet, in response to a proper objection, the district court\\nwould still need to weigh its probative value against the risk\\nof unfair prejudice under Rules 403 and 404(b). Taylor, 522\\nF.3d at 732–33.\\n Without an objection, the district court did not plainly err\\nin admitting Officer Ellestad’s testimony. The testimony was\\nrelevant to show that the telephone number belonged to\\nThomas and that he used the number to coordinate with\\nThompson and Manbauman. Thomas disputed his involve-\\nment in the planning and execution of the robbery. He also\\ndisputed Thompson’s testimony explaining that he commu-\\nnicated with Thomas using that telephone number. The cor-\\nroborating testimony of Thomas’s probation officer—includ-\\ning his job title, which established that he clearly knew how\\nto get in touch with Thomas—had significant probative value.\\n When a defendant objects to evidence that will put the fact\\nof a prior conviction before the jury, the trial judge should\\nconsider whether other evidence might serve the same pur-\\npose and should weigh probative value against the risk of un-\\nfair prejudice. See United States v. Loughry, 660 F.3d 965, 974\\n(7th Cir. 2011) (“availability of other means of proof is an ap-\\npropriate factor to consider in determining the relevance of an\\nitem of evidence”), citing Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S.\\n172, 182–84 (1997). If Thomas had been willing to stipulate\\n\\fNos. 18-1356 & 18-1519 9\\n\\nthat the telephone number was his, there would have been no\\nreason to introduce his probation officer’s testimony. But\\nThomas disputed whether the number belonged to him. That\\nwas his right, of course, but the government was entitled to\\noffer evidence to corroborate Thompson’s testimony tying\\nThomas to the telephone number.\\n Also, the risk of unfair prejudice here was reduced. The\\njury was already aware through other, proper evidence that\\nThomas had a criminal history. The defense itself referred to\\nThomas’s criminal history multiple times. The defense noted\\nThomas’s prior incarceration with government witness Rob-\\nert Lynn in its opening statement. See Trial Tr. I-120 (“You’ll\\nalso hear that Detective Sabol finds out a couple months after\\nthe robbery that Mr. Thomas was in jail with a guy named\\nRobert Lynn. … They were in jail together the spring be-\\nfore.”). Thomas did not object to the introduction of Lynn’s\\ntestimony later in the trial. The defense’s opening statement\\nalso acknowledged:\\n During this trial you will learn that Mr. Thomas\\n is not a squeaky clean guy. We are not going to\\n try to pretend he’s something he’s not. He hangs\\n out with unsavory characters. Sometimes he\\n sells drugs to get by. Sometimes he steals credit\\n cards, forgery, makes his money that way, stuff\\n like that.\\nIn closing argument, the defense reiterated:\\n I know that Mr. Thomas is not a great guy. …\\n That’s not what makes him guilty of robbery.\\n Because those other bad acts, that evidence that,\\n like, “Hey, man, you’re with some unsavory\\n\\f10 Nos. 18-1356 & 18-1519\\n\\n folks. You’re a heroin dealer. You know, youʹre\\n the kind of guy that steals iPads and does credit\\n card fraud. You are a despicable human be-\\n ing”—if the charge was you’re a despicable hu-\\n man being, go for it, guilty, guilty, but it’s not.\\n Given these references from the defense, Officer Ellestad’s\\nreference to being Thomas’s probation officer was not un-\\nfairly prejudicial and did not outweigh the probative value of\\nhis testimony. See Fed. R. Evid. 403. Thomas’s criminal past\\n“was already before the jury,” and the likelihood that this as-\\npect of Officer Ellestad’s testimony “had any effect on the jury\\nis negligible.” United States v. Courtright, 632 F.3d 363, 370 (7th\\nCir. 2011). We doubt there was any error, and there certainly\\nwas no plain error, in admitting this testimony.\\n B. The $30,000 Car Telephone Call\\n Before trial, the government informed the court that it\\nwould offer a recording of a telephone call Thomas made\\nwhile in pretrial detention in which he said that a Mercedes\\nBenz he bought shortly after the robbery was worth $30,000.\\nThomas objected to this evidence, so we review the court’s\\ndecision to admit it for an abuse of discretion. United States v.\\nCunningham, 462 F.3d 708, 712 (7th Cir. 2006). While this is not\\nthe plain-error standard, this standard is still deferential.\\nUnited States v. Ozuna, 561 F.3d 728, 738 (7th Cir. 2009).\\n This issue has become a bit muddled factually. Shortly be-\\nfore oral argument on appeal, the government filed a letter\\nexplaining that the portion of this telephone call referring to\\nthe supposed $30,000 value of the car was “unintentionally\\ndeleted … from the recordings presented to the jury.” The ju-\\nrors heard only the portions of the recording where Thomas\\n\\fNos. 18-1356 & 18-1519 11\\n\\ndescribed the Mercedes as a “luxury car” that should run on\\npremium gas. In its opening statement, however, the govern-\\nment told the jury that it would hear about “jail phone calls”\\nin which Thomas said that the Mercedes was “all paid for and\\nthat it cost him $30,000.” Later in the trial, the defense on\\ncross-examination asked the lead case detective: “You heard\\nin a telephone call that Mr. Thomas said the car was worth\\n$30,000, correct?” The detective answered “Yes.” Since the\\nchallenged $30,000 statement was never actually played, the\\njury heard about it only in the government’s opening and the\\ndefense’s cross-examination of the detective. These discrep-\\nancies were not raised in the district court. We believe the\\nmost prudent way to proceed in this appeal is to review the\\ndistrict court’s ruling to admit the $30,000 statement as if the\\nstatement had been included in the recording played for the\\njury as part of the evidence.\\n The district court did not abuse its discretion in deciding\\nto admit this evidence. Thomas argues that the admission of\\nthis recording was cumulative because other evidence al-\\nready indicated that he bought the Mercedes Benz shortly af-\\nter the bank robbery. But Thomas would not stipulate to the\\nvalue of the car being $30,000, and at trial he asked questions\\nof witnesses suggesting, and argued in closing, that the value\\nwas much less.3 The government wanted to introduce this\\nstatement because $30,000 was roughly half of the proceeds of\\nthe bank robbery. The value of the car was disputed and\\nsomewhat relevant, and Thomas’s statement was not\\n\\n 3 While questioning the detective, Thomas noted that the car had\\n149,800 miles on it and “had been shot up”—suggesting that “a car that’s\\nbeen shot by a gun tends to depreciate in value” and would not be worth\\n$30,000. We express no opinion on the actual value of the car.\\n\\f12 Nos. 18-1356 & 18-1519\\n\\ncumulative because it was the only evidence of the supposed\\n$30,000 value of the car.\\n Thomas also argues that the reference to the “jail phone\\ncall” was unfairly prejudicial, but for reasons similar to those\\ndiscussed above regarding his probation officer, the reference\\nto his pretrial detention would have added little if anything\\nto what the jury already knew about him. We have explained\\nthat a defendant “may have been somewhat prejudiced” by\\nthe admission of recordings of telephone calls he made while\\nawaiting trial, but “the occasional reference to the fact that\\n[the defendant] had at some point been in jail” while awaiting\\ntrial is unlikely “to undermine the presumption of innocence\\nand the defendant’s right to a fair trial.” United States v. John-\\nson, 624 F.3d 815, 821–22 (7th Cir. 2010).\\n As with Officer Ellestad’s testimony, discussed above, if\\nThomas had stipulated to the supposed $30,000 value of the\\ncar, the government would not have had a good reason to in-\\ntroduce this evidence. See Loughry, 660 F.3d at 974. The dis-\\ntrict court gave Thomas the opportunity to so stipulate, but he\\nrefused—again, as he was perfectly entitled to. But without a\\nstipulation, this recording was the government’s only evi-\\ndence as to the supposed $30,000 value of the car. The value\\nof the car was disputed, and the jail telephone call was neither\\ncumulative nor unfairly prejudicial. The district court did not\\nabuse its discretion by deciding to allow evidence of\\nThomas’s statement that the Mercedes was worth $30,000.\\n C. “You” in the Government’s Closing Argument\\n For Count I—the bank-robbery offense—the government\\nwas required to prove that the money was taken from the\\nbank “by force and violence, or by intimidation.” 18 U.S.C.\\n\\fNos. 18-1356 & 18-1519 13\\n\\n§ 2113(a). “Intimidation exists when a bank robber’s words\\nand actions would cause an ordinary person to feel threat-\\nened, by giving rise to a reasonable fear that resistance or de-\\nfiance will be met with force.” United States v. Gordon, 642 F.3d\\n596, 598 (7th Cir. 2011). The district court instructed the jury\\nto that effect: “the term ‘intimidation’ means to say or do\\nsomething that would make a reasonable person feel threat-\\nened under the circumstances.”\\n In its closing argument, the government used language\\ndescribing this standard sometimes as objective and some-\\ntimes as subjective—referring sometimes to a “reasonable\\nperson” but also to “you,” arguably asking the jurors to think\\nabout how they themselves would have felt. The district court\\nfirmly corrected the prosecutor in front of the jury: “This is\\nthe second time you violated the golden rule. It’s not for you\\nto decide what you personally would feel. It is what a reason-\\nable person would feel, and I don’t want you to do it again.”\\nThe government apologized and explained to the jury: “So the\\njudge is right. It’s not what—it’s the reasonable person stand-\\nard, and you have to do the reasonable person standard.”\\n Even if the prosecutor’s language may have been im-\\nproper, the court immediately corrected it. Thomas raised no\\nobjection, and he was not deprived of a fair trial. See United\\nStates v. Common, 818 F.3d 323, 331 (7th Cir. 2016) (court must\\nfirst determine “whether the remarks by the prosecutor were\\nimproper when viewed in isolation,” and if so, the court will\\nthen “evaluate them in the context of the entire record and\\ndetermine whether defendant was deprived of a fair trial.”)\\n(citation and internal quotation marks omitted). We have ex-\\nplained: “As a general matter, improper comments during\\nclosing argument rarely rise to the level of reversible error,\\n\\f14 Nos. 18-1356 & 18-1519\\n\\nand considerable discretion is entrusted to the district court\\nto supervise the arguments of counsel.” United States v. Wil-\\nson, 985 F.2d 348, 353 (7th Cir. 1993) (citation and internal quo-\\ntation marks omitted); see also United States v. Berg, 640 F.3d\\n239, 253 (7th Cir. 2011).\\n There was no abuse of discretion here, let alone a plain er-\\nror. Lawyers sometimes are not as precise as they should be\\nwhen giving extemporaneous closing arguments. Even with-\\nout an objection, trial judges have the power to intervene if\\nthey believe that language has strayed too far from the\\nstraight and narrow, as the judge did here. To determine the\\neffect of prosecutorial comments on the fairness of the trial,\\nwe consider: “(1) the nature and seriousness of the alleged\\nmisconduct; (2) whether the defense invited the prosecutor’s\\nstatements; (3) whether the jury instructions adequately ad-\\ndressed the matter; (4) whether the defense had an oppor-\\ntunity to respond to the improper remarks; and (5) the weight\\nof the evidence against the defendant.” United States v. Klemis,\\n859 F.3d 436, 442 (7th Cir. 2017). This minor misstatement of\\nthe standard, which Judge Conley corrected immediately, did\\nnot deprive Thomas of his right to a fair trial. The jury instruc-\\ntions used the proper standard, and, given the evidence that\\nThompson brandished a gun to terrify the robbery victims,\\nnuances about the standards for intimidation were unlikely to\\nhave affected the verdict.\\n D. Speedy Trial\\n The Sixth Amendment guarantees the accused “the right\\nto a speedy and public trial.” In determining whether a pre-\\ntrial delay violates the Speedy Trial Clause, we consider: “(1)\\nthe length of the delay, (2) the reason for the delay, (3) the de-\\nfendant’s assertion of his speedy trial right, and (4) the\\n\\fNos. 18-1356 & 18-1519 15\\n\\nprejudice to the defendant caused by the delay.” United States\\nv. Koller, 956 F.2d 1408, 1413 (7th Cir. 1992), citing Barker v.\\nWingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530 (1972). Thomas claims that he was\\ndenied this right because his trial occurred almost eighteen\\nmonths after his indictment. He contends that his convictions\\nshould therefore be vacated. Thomas did not raise this consti-\\ntutional argument in the district court, so again we review\\nonly for plain error. See, e.g., United States v. O’Connor, 656\\nF.3d 630, 643 (7th Cir. 2011).4\\n “Delays of more than one year are considered presump-\\ntively prejudicial,” but the presumption may be rebutted. Id.\\nThe delays here were for legitimate reasons, and Thomas is\\nhard-pressed to point us to any actual prejudice he suffered.\\nThomas concedes that 281 days of the delay are not attributa-\\nble to the government and are not an issue. This period in-\\ncludes the 161 days from his indictment until Thomas himself\\nfiled an unopposed motion to move the trial date. It also in-\\ncludes the next 120 days, from Thomas’s motion to move the\\ntrial date until the conflict of interest arose with Thompson’s\\ncounsel. The period at issue is the following 242 days, from\\nthe date of the hearing on the conflict, when the district court\\ndenied Thomas’s request to keep his February 2017 trial date,\\nuntil the date of his trial (October 16, 2017). Thomas seeks to\\nattribute these 242 days of delay to the government.\\n This eight-month delay was unfortunate but justified. An\\nissue arose when the government sought to question a wit-\\nness who was also represented by Thompson’s counsel, cre-\\nating an irreconcilable conflict of interest. The district court\\n\\n\\n 4\\n Thomas objected to postponing the trial, but he did not raise a Sixth\\nAmendment challenge.\\n\\f16 Nos. 18-1356 & 18-1519\\n\\naccepted the government’s judgment that the prospective wit-\\nness’s testimony was important. The postponement was nec-\\nessary for Thompson to obtain new counsel, and the court\\nviewed the delay as “nobody’s fault,” but rather “one of those\\nirreconcilable conflicts” that required a continuance. We\\nagree. While unfortunate, this sort of delay sometimes just\\nhappens with multiple defendants.\\n Thomas objected to the continuance and sought a trial sep-\\narate from Thompson without further delay. That would have\\nbeen a permissible response to the problem, but the govern-\\nment responded with a legitimate objection of its own, saying\\nthat it could not “put the [bank] tellers through two trials,”\\ngiven their psychological trauma. The district court “easily”\\ndetermined that given the “nature of the government’s wit-\\nnesses,” it would not put them through two trials. The gov-\\nernment also explained that the delay was not ideal for the\\ngovernment itself because the bank-teller eyewitnesses, who\\nhad been traumatized by the robbery, were hoping to get the\\ntrial over with. These were all legitimate considerations in de-\\nciding how to solve an unexpected problem with no ideal so-\\nlution.\\n We recognize that the delay meant that Thomas spent an\\nadditional eight months in pretrial detention. But the Su-\\npreme Court in Barker v. Wingo found that a total of ten\\nmonths of detention before trial did not rise to the level of se-\\nrious prejudice. 407 U.S. at 530 & 534; see Koller, 956 F.2d at\\n1414–15 (finding no Sixth Amendment violation where ac-\\ncused spent months in pretrial detention while government\\nwitness recovered from heart surgery). Thomas has failed to\\ndemonstrate any significant impairment in his defense as a\\nresult of the delay. He speculates that, but for the delay,\\n\\fNos. 18-1356 & 18-1519 17\\n\\nThompson might not have decided to plead guilty and agree\\nto testify against him. Perhaps, but we have explained that the\\nfact that “the government was able to strengthen its case\\nagainst [the defendant] during the delay … is not relevant to\\nthe prejudice analysis.” United States v. Gearhart, 576 F.3d 459,\\n463 (7th Cir. 2009). The delay here did not violate the Speedy\\nTrial Clause of the Sixth Amendment.\\n E. Jury Instructions\\n Finally, Thomas argues that we should vacate his seven-\\nyear sentence on Count Two for aiding and abetting the bran-\\ndishing of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of vio-\\nlence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) because the court erred\\nin its jury instructions.5 Thomas contends that the jury was\\nnot adequately instructed on the government’s burden to\\nprove he had advance knowledge that Thompson would\\nbrandish a firearm during the robbery. Thomas did not raise\\nthis issue in the district court, so he faces an “uphill battle”\\nunder plain-error review. See United States v. Wheeler, 540 F.3d\\n683, 689 (7th Cir. 2008). Regardless, the jury instructions here\\nwere not erroneous.\\n Section 924(c) provides that “any person who, during and\\nin relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime\\n\\n 5 A “crime of violence” is defined as “an offense that is a felony and—\\n\\n(A) has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical\\nforce against the person or property of another, or (B) that by its nature,\\ninvolves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or prop-\\nerty of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.” 18\\nU.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A) & (B). The Supreme Court has now invalidated sub-\\nparagraph (B)—the residual clause—as unconstitutionally vague. United\\nStates v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319, 2336 (2019). That decision does not affect\\nthis case. The bank-robbery count is covered by subparagraph (A).\\n\\f18 Nos. 18-1356 & 18-1519\\n\\n… uses or carries a firearm,” is subject to a five-year statutory-\\nminimum consecutive sentence. 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) &\\n(D)(ii). The minimum consecutive sentence is increased to\\nseven years “if the firearm is brandished.” § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii).\\nUnder 18 U.S.C. § 2, a defendant who “aids, abets, counsels,\\ncommands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable\\nas a principal.” To apply the brandishing enhancement to\\nThomas, the jury needed to find beyond a reasonable doubt\\nthat Thomas knew in advance not only that Thompson would\\nbe carrying a firearm but also that he would be brandishing\\nit. United States v. Armour, 840 F.3d 904, 911 (7th Cir. 2016).\\n The jury instructions here properly conveyed the govern-\\nment’s burden to prove advance knowledge of brandishing to\\ntrigger the seven-year statutory-minimum sentence.\\nThomas’s main argument is that the district court did not re-\\npeat the advance knowledge requirement in the instructions\\non the special verdict form. But the special verdict form tied\\nits question directly to the instructions for Count Two, which\\nproperly included the advance knowledge requirement. A\\nreasonable juror would not have understood this special ver-\\ndict form to have dispensed with the advance knowledge re-\\nquirement set forth clearly in the instructions for Count Two.\\nThe point of the special verdict form was to make sure there\\nwas unanimity on brandishing (as opposed to simply using\\nor carrying). In no way did the form take away anything from\\nthe instructions to Count Two. It merely added this additional\\nsafeguard. The district court did not err in instructing the jury,\\nlet alone plainly err.\\n Thompson’s appeal (No. 18-1519) is DISMISSED. The dis-\\ntrict court’s judgment in Thomas’s case (No. 18-1356) is\\nAFFIRMED.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3769,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4645047,"string":"4,645,047"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"Steven D. LISLE, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William WELBORN, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Steven Lisle, Jr. v. William Welborn"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-08-01"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-1595"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Hamilton, Barrett, Eve\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"David Frank Hamilton\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-1595\\nSTEVEN D. LISLE, JR.,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n v.\\n\\nWILLIAM WELBORN, et al.,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Southern District of Illinois.\\n No. 3:15-CV-00965 — Michael J. Reagan, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED MARCH 29, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 1, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before HAMILTON, BARRETT, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.\\n HAMILTON, Circuit Judge. This appeal presents issues stem-\\nming from a prison’s discipline of a prisoner and his later su-\\nicide attempts. The story began in 2014 when correctional of-\\nficers at the Menard Correctional Facility found contraband\\nalcohol in the cell of plaintiff Steven D. Lisle, Jr. Lisle’s cell-\\nmate at first took responsibility for the contraband but later\\nrecanted outside of Lisle’s presence. He said instead that Lisle\\nhad been abusing him and had forced him to take the blame\\n\\f2 No. 18-1595\\n\\nfor the alcohol. In disciplinary proceedings, Lisle later asked\\nto call a witness to testify about his cellmate’s initial admis-\\nsions. His requests were ignored. Lisle, who is black, was sen-\\ntenced to four months in disciplinary segregation. His cell-\\nmate, who was white, was not disciplined.\\n While in segregation, Lisle attempted to commit suicide\\nthree times. His third attempt was nearly successful, and he\\nwas placed on suicide watch in the prison infirmary. While\\nthere, Lisle claims, a nurse taunted him for his failed suicide\\nattempts and encouraged him to try again. Lisle filed this suit\\nalleging that he was punished based on his race, that he was\\ndeprived of liberty without due process of law, and that the\\nprison staff’s conduct in the wake of his mental health crisis—\\nincluding the nurse’s statements—amounted to cruel and un-\\nusual punishment.\\n The district court granted summary judgment on several\\nclaims but held a jury trial on Lisle’s claims for deliberate in-\\ndifference to a serious medical need. During jury selection,\\ndefense lawyers used peremptory strikes to remove three of\\nthe four black potential jurors. After the jury was selected, but\\nbefore it was sworn and the venire released, Lisle’s counsel\\nobjected pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986),\\nchallenging the use of peremptory strikes against the black\\njurors. The judge denied the objection as untimely.\\n Lisle appeals the summary judgment decision and seeks a\\nnew trial based on his Batson claim. We agree that his Batson\\nclaim was timely, and we cannot find that the erroneous de-\\nnial was harmless. We remand for an evidentiary hearing on\\nthe Batson claim and, if necessary, a new trial on all claims that\\nwere tried. We also reverse summary judgment for the nurse\\n\\fNo. 18-1595 3\\n\\non the taunting claim. We affirm all other aspects of the judg-\\nment.\\nI. Factual & Procedural Background\\n A. Cell Search & Disciplinary Proceeding\\n To the extent we review the partial grant of summary\\njudgment, we review the facts in the light most favorable to\\nLisle as the non-moving party, giving him the benefit of con-\\nflicts in the evidence. Spaine v. Community Contacts, Inc., 756\\nF.3d 542, 544 (7th Cir. 2014). Steven D. Lisle, Jr. was an inmate\\nat the Menard Correctional Center in Illinois, where he shared\\na cell with another inmate. On August 12, 2014, when Lisle\\nwas at the prison gym, correctional officers searched his cell\\nand found contraband: a trash bag of liquid that contained 7%\\nalcohol. Two correctional officers took Lisle to segregation to\\nawait a disciplinary hearing.\\n On the way to the segregation unit, he crossed paths with\\nhis cellmate, who had also been at the gym when the search\\noccurred. Lisle asked his cellmate if he was going to “take his\\nweight” (claim responsibility) for the contraband. The cell-\\nmate said yes and told Lisle that he had “already told them\\nwhatever they found” in the cell was his. Lieutenant Michael\\nSamuel was within earshot of this conversation. Lisle told\\nLieutenant Samuel that he was going to call him as a witness\\nat his disciplinary hearing. Samuel told Lisle he would testify.\\n Outside of Lisle’s presence, though, his cellmate later re-\\ncanted. He said he had claimed the alcohol was his only be-\\ncause Lisle had put him “through some serious hell.” The cell-\\nmate revealed extensive bruising all over his body that he\\nclaimed was the result of Lisle’s physical and sexual abuse.\\nHe expressed fear for his life. The cellmate was placed in\\n\\f4 No. 18-1595\\n\\nprotective custody and a rape kit was used to test him. He was\\nnever placed in segregation, and the Adjustment Committee\\nfound him not guilty for the contraband. Lieutenant Brook-\\nman testified in this case that Lisle was not informed of the\\nallegations his cellmate made because disclosing to an alleged\\nabuser that his victim has reported the abuse is “what gets\\npeople hurt in prison.”\\n Once Lisle was placed in segregation, a correctional officer\\nprovided him with a copy of the disciplinary report outlining\\nthe charged violations. Lisle asked for a pen so that he could\\nsign the report and ask to have Lieutenant Samuel testify at\\nthe disciplinary hearing. The officer refused, so Lisle made an\\noral request that Samuel be called to testify. The next day,\\nLisle met with his counselor and again made an oral request\\nto call Lieutenant Samuel as a witness. His counselor for-\\nwarded the request to Internal Affairs, which in turn faxed the\\nrequest to the Adjustment Committee.\\n Two days after the search, the disciplinary hearing was\\nheld before the Adjustment Committee comprised of Lieuten-\\nant Kent Brookman and another official whom Lisle has not\\nsued. Lieutenant Samuel did not attend the disciplinary hear-\\ning. Brookman indicated he had already spoken with Samuel\\nand would do so again. 1\\n The Adjustment Committee found Lisle guilty and sen-\\ntenced him to four months of disciplinary segregation and\\nfour months of reduced privileges, such as commissary re-\\nstrictions, and six months of contact visit restriction. Despite\\nLisle’s request that Samuel testify at least three times, the\\n\\n 1 It is not clear from the record whether Brookman actually spoke with\\n\\nSamuel or not. For purposes of summary judgment, we assume he did not.\\n\\fNo. 18-1595 5\\n\\nAdjustment Committee’s final report indicated that he had\\nnot requested a witness.\\n B. Lisle’s Mental Health Crisis\\n While in segregation, Lisle attempted to commit suicide\\nwith a makeshift rope three times over the course of three\\ndays. He claimed that being denied the chance to present a\\nwitness at his hearing and the slow response to the post-hear-\\ning grievances he filed caused him to become depressed. He\\nrepeatedly asked for a mental health and crisis team but did\\nnot receive intervening assistance before his third suicide at-\\ntempt.\\n Lisle described his segregation cell as being poorly venti-\\nlated, with rusty bars and with corroded feces in the toilet. He\\nwas not given a brush to clean the toilet, and he had access to\\nfewer cleaning supplies due to his loss of commissary privi-\\nleges. He also had fewer privileges than when he was in gen-\\neral population, such as loss of access to the gym and fewer\\nopportunities to go outside or shower. He had a cellmate\\nthroughout his entire stay in “segregation.”\\n Lisle described his first two suicide attempts in a deposi-\\ntion taken April 25, 2017. He said his first suicide attempt on\\nSeptember 3, 2014 failed when the makeshift rope he tied\\naround his neck snapped under his weight. Lisle alleges Lieu-\\ntenant Welborn and Nurse Reeves witnessed the attempt.\\nLisle claims he informed them he was attempting to kill him-\\nself and handed Reeves a suicide note. According to Lisle,\\nthey both walked away without a word.\\n The next day, Lisle again attempted suicide unsuccess-\\nfully, this time, he says, in the presence of correctional officer\\nChristopher McClure and another nurse, Jodi Hormann. Lisle\\n\\f6 No. 18-1595\\n\\nagain claims he handed the nurse a suicide note and told them\\nboth that he intended to kill himself. In a repeat of the day\\nbefore, Lisle says, the two prison staff members simply\\nwalked away. Before Lisle attempted suicide a third time, he\\ngave another officer, Cale Young, a third suicide note and in-\\nformed the officer that he was going to attempt suicide again.\\nAccording to Lisle, Young put the note in his pocket and\\nwalked away.\\n The night of September 5, 2014, Lisle attempted to commit\\nsuicide a third time while his cellmate was asleep. This time,\\na correctional officer and a medical staff member saw him\\nhanging in his cell and yelled for his cellmate to help. His cell-\\nmate helped the officers support Lisle by his legs to give the\\nofficers time to remove the rope from his neck. Lisle was taken\\nto the infirmary, where the medical staff noted he had injuries\\non his neck that appeared several days old, consistent with\\nprior suicide attempts. He remained in the infirmary and was\\nplaced on suicide watch.\\n On the instructions of the medical director, Lisle was\\nplaced on “strip cell suicide watch,” which meant he was not\\nprovided a mattress and could use only a suicide-resistant\\nblanket. He was also checked every ten minutes, with vital\\nsigns checked every two hours. Jana South was a nurse work-\\ning in the infirmary when Lisle was admitted. Lisle testified\\nthat when Nurse South evaluated him a few hours later, she\\nrepeatedly mocked him for failing to kill himself. She la-\\nmented that Lisle had not succeeded in his suicide attempts,\\ntold him he should have done it “properly,” and said he\\nshould “do a better job next time.” Later, Lisle also com-\\nplained that his back hurt from sleeping on the steel slab with-\\nout a mattress and requested a blanket because his cell was\\n\\fNo. 18-1595 7\\n\\ntoo cold. South taunted him, saying that if he wanted a mat-\\ntress, he should not be on suicide watch and that he should\\nnot care about being cold or uncomfortable since he was try-\\ning to kill himself. South denied making any of these state-\\nments.\\n Despite the dispute about what Nurse South said, it is un-\\ndisputed that she continued to provide care to Lisle. She eval-\\nuated him several times, took his vital signs, and conducted\\nat least one neurological examination. After her first evalua-\\ntion of Lisle, South also called a mental health physician to\\nevaluate Lisle, which occurred the next morning. Lisle re-\\nmained in the infirmary for six days.\\n C. Partial Summary Judgment and Trial\\n Lisle sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, bringing five counts\\nagainst fourteen prison staff members. First, he claimed Lieu-\\ntenant Brookman, as chair of the Adjustment Committee, de-\\nprived him of a protected liberty interest without due process\\nof law when he failed to call Lieutenant Samuel to testify.\\nLisle also alleged that Lieutenants Samuel and Brookman and\\nthe second officer who brought Lisle to segregation discrimi-\\nnated against him based on his race. Count III alleged an\\nEighth Amendment claim against Reeves, Welborn, Hor-\\nmann, McClure, Young, and South, for their failure to obtain\\nmedical help for Lisle when he was suicidal, and for Nurse\\nSouth’s verbal abuse of Lisle when he was on suicide watch.\\nHe also sued Nurse South based on his experiences in the in-\\nfirmary and her alleged refusal to call a doctor when he re-\\nquested one. Finally, he alleged that several prison officials\\nviolated his constitutional rights in their handling of multiple\\ngrievances he had filed.\\n\\f8 No. 18-1595\\n\\n The defendants moved for summary judgment. The dis-\\ntrict court granted the motion in part on the due process claim\\nbecause Lisle failed to show that confinement in segregation\\ndeprived him of a protected liberty interest. The district court\\nalso granted summary judgment for the equal protection de-\\nfendants, finding no evidence of racial motive in any defend-\\nant’s actions.\\n The district court dismissed the deliberate indifference\\nclaim against Nurse South for her conduct in the infirmary.\\nThe district court reasoned that under DeWalt v. Carter, 224\\nF.3d 607, 612 (7th Cir. 2000), the alleged taunting would be\\n“reprehensible,” but would amount only to “simple verbal\\nharassment,” which would not amount to cruel and unusual\\npunishment. The court explained: “though South may have\\nmade statements suggesting Plaintiff kill himself, she none-\\ntheless did her job and treated Plaintiff. Defendant South\\ntherefore did not exhibit deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s\\nrisk of suicide.” The court denied summary judgment on the\\nclaims of deliberate indifference against the prison staff mem-\\nbers for their alleged failure to act when Lisle was suicidal.\\n The court granted summary judgment dismissing most of\\nLisle’s conditions-of-confinement claims, but the court denied\\nsummary judgment on his claim that Nurse South refused to\\ncall a doctor. Finally, the court dismissed the claims against\\nvarious prison officials for their failure to act on the griev-\\nances he submitted because Lisle failed to provide sufficient\\nevidence to support these claims.\\n The surviving claims were tried to a jury. During voir dire,\\nonly four African-American veniremen were called. The two\\nteams of defense counsel used three of their six peremptory\\nstrikes against black panel members. Just after the jurors were\\n\\fNo. 18-1595 9\\n\\nselected, but before they were sworn and the venire released,\\nLisle’s attorney objected pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky, 476\\nU.S. 79 (1986), that those three strikes were racially motivated.\\nThe district court denied Lisle’s objection as untimely. The\\ncourt told Lisle he “should have made [the objections] while\\nwe were doing it. I think you waived at this juncture. We can\\nmake a record. I know we do have an African American on\\nthe jury.”\\n The court then addressed defense counsel, explaining that\\nif they wanted “to make a responseY I am happy to listen to\\nrace neutral responsesY. It is probably a good opportunity for\\nyou to respond if you have a race neutral response you want\\nto give or you don’t have to respond at all.” Counsel for the\\nmedical defendants briefly explained that they struck two\\nblack jurors who had close family members who had been in-\\ncarcerated. Counsel doubted those jurors’ abilities to be fair\\nto the defendants in this case, despite the jurors’ assertions\\nthat the family members’ experiences would not affect their\\ndecision. The judge said that the reasons proffered were race\\nneutral, but he did not make any express finding that he be-\\nlieved the offered reasons were honest.\\n After a three-day trial, a jury found for Lisle on the claim\\nthat Reeves, Welborn, Hormann, and McClure were deliber-\\nately indifferent to his suicide attempts, but the jury awarded\\nhim only $300 in compensatory damages. The jury found in\\nfavor of Nurse South on the claim that she denied Lisle a phy-\\nsician. The jury also found for Young on the claim of deliber-\\nate indifference to Lisle’s suicide attempt and for Hill on the\\nclaim that she was deliberately indifferent to a serious risk of\\nharm to Lisle by ignoring his grievances.\\n\\f10 No. 18-1595\\n\\n On appeal, Lisle argues that his Batson challenge was\\ntimely and that summary judgment for the defendants was\\nimproper on some claims: whether South’s comments vio-\\nlated the Eighth Amendment, whether Lieutenants Brookman\\nand Samuel violated the Equal Protection Clause, and\\nwhether Brookman deprived him of liberty without due pro-\\ncess when he refused to call Samuel as a witness.\\nII. Analysis\\n We begin with the district court’s ruling on the Batson chal-\\nlenge before analyzing its decisions to grant summary judg-\\nment on the Eighth Amendment, equal protection, and due\\nprocess claims.\\n A. Batson Challenge\\n In Batson v. Kentucky, the Supreme Court held that “the\\nState denies a black defendant equal protection of the laws\\nwhen it puts him on trial before a jury from which members\\nof his race have been purposefully excluded.” 476 U.S. 79, 85\\n(1986). Batson has been extended to civil cases, so peremptory\\nstrikes simply may not be used on account of race. Foster v.\\nChatman, 136 S. Ct. 1737, 1747 (2016) (“The ‘Constitution for-\\nbids striking even a single prospective juror for a discrimina-\\ntory purpose.’”), quoting Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472, 478\\n(2008); Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., 500 U.S. 614, 631\\n(1991) (Batson applies to civil cases).\\n A Batson claim is analyzed in a three-step process in the\\ntrial court. First, if a party suspects peremptory strikes are be-\\ning used for discriminatory reasons, he must object and make\\na prima facie case of racial discrimination. “[T]he burden at\\nthe prima facie stage is low, requiring only circumstances rais-\\ning a suspicion that discrimination occurred, even where\\n\\fNo. 18-1595 11\\n\\nthose circumstances are insufficient to indicate that it is more\\nlikely than not that the challenges were used to discriminate.”\\nUnited States v. Stephens, 421 F.3d 503, 512 (7th Cir. 2005). Sec-\\nond, if the court finds the party has made a prima facie show-\\ning of discrimination, the burden shifts to the striking party\\nto provide a race-neutral reason for the strike. Flowers v. Mis-\\nsissippi, 139 S. Ct. 2228, 2241 (2019). Third, the trial judge must\\nthen “determine whether the Y stated reasons were the actual\\nreasons or instead were a pretext for discrimination.” Id.\\n The district court rejected Lisle’s Batson challenge as un-\\ntimely. Trial judges have considerable flexibility and discre-\\ntion in managing jury selection, including how they provide\\na reasonable opportunity to raise Batson challenges. A reason-\\nable opportunity to raise a Batson challenge is essential. This\\nBatson challenge was not untimely. We have said that “[c]on-\\ntemporaneous objection is imperative with respect to Batson\\nclaims,” United States v. Chandler, 12 F.3d 1427, 1431 (7th Cir.\\n1994), but contemporaneous does not mean instantaneous.\\nRather, “the dismissal of the venire or the swearing of the jury\\nis the presumptive deadline for making Batson challenges.”\\nUnited States v. Williams, 819 F.3d 1026, 1029 (7th Cir. 2016).\\n Lisle’s Batson challenge was timely. He objected within\\nminutes after the third of four black potential jurors was\\nstruck. He objected before the jury was sworn and before the\\ndismissal of the venire. While Batson objections should be\\nraised as early as practicable, the purpose of these challenges\\nand our case law show that an objection to a discriminatory\\nstrike need not occur immediately after a particular strike is\\nmade. After all, “a ‘pattern’ of strikes against black jurors in-\\ncluded in the particular venire might give rise to an inference\\nof discrimination.” Flowers, 139 S. Ct. at 2246, quoting Batson,\\n\\f12 No. 18-1595\\n\\n476 U.S. at 97. The objecting party might not even be aware of\\na violation until several strikes have been made, or even until\\nall peremptory strikes have been exercised by all parties. The\\ntrial judge erred in deeming Lisle’s Batson challenge untimely.\\n We also cannot deem harmless here the erroneous denial\\nof the Batson challenge as untimely. First, a racially motivated\\nstrike of a single juror is forbidden and requires a new trial.\\nFoster, 136 S. Ct. at 1747, quoting Snyder, 552 U.S. at 478. In\\naddition, the trial judge’s sensible effort to “make a record” at\\nthe time fell one critical step short. The judge invited defense\\ncounsel to state for the record race-neutral reasons for their\\nstrikes of the black jurors. They did so, and the judge said they\\nwere indeed race-neutral reasons. The problem is that the\\njudge never took the final step of making a finding on the spot\\nabout the credibility of those reasons. See, e.g., Snyder, 552\\nU.S. at 479 (reversing denial of Batson challenge where trial\\njudge had never made finding on juror’s demeanor or credi-\\nbility of proffered race-neutral reason for strike). And unfor-\\ntunately, counsel did not ask the judge for that one further\\nfinding. While we can glean some information from this rec-\\nord, we have no way to know whether the attorneys were\\ncredible. For example, the record does not show whether sim-\\nilarly situated white jurors were struck for similar reasons,\\nnor did the judge say anything about anyone’s demeanor. 2\\n Because the district court did not make a credibility find-\\ning here, we must remand for further findings and,\\n\\n 2\\n We asked at oral argument whether any peremptory strikes were\\nused on white jurors for similar reasons. Counsel for defendants re-\\nsponded that Juror 9 was white and was also struck because he had a close\\nfamily member who had been incarcerated. The district court, however,\\nnoted on the record that Juror 9 was black. Supp. App. 340.\\n\\fNo. 18-1595 13\\n\\ndepending on the findings, a new trial. Morgan v. City of Chi-\\ncago, 822 F.3d 317, 331 (7th Cir. 2016); United States v. Rutledge,\\n648 F.3d 555, 560 (7th Cir. 2011) (“when we confront an evi-\\ndentiary gap at step three, the ultimate Batson issue cannot be\\nresolved without a remand”). If the district court cannot make\\nthe necessary findings (perhaps because of delay or the vet-\\neran trial judge’s retirement), or if the court ultimately finds\\nthat the stated reasons were not credible, then the case must\\nbe retried. See Rutledge, 648 F.3d at 562 (conviction must be\\nvacated “if the passage of time precludes the district court\\nfrom making such findings, or if it finds that the prosecutor’s\\nreasons are not credible”); United States v. McMath, 559 F.3d\\n657, 666 (7th Cir. 2009) (remand for findings rather than retry-\\ning the case was appropriate remedy in light of court’s failure\\nto make findings on race-neutral reasons when only a year\\nhad passed); see also SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Abbott Labs.,\\n740 F.3d 471, 489 (9th Cir. 2014) (remanding for a new trial\\nafter Batson violation in civil case).\\n B. Cruel and Unusual Punishment Claim Against Nurse South\\n The district court granted summary judgment for Nurse\\nSouth on the ground that simple verbal harassment cannot\\nconstitute cruel and unusual punishment. For purposes of\\nsummary judgment, we must assume South did make the\\nstatements as Lisle claimed, encouraging Lisle to kill himself\\nwhile he was on suicide watch under her care.\\n Summary judgment is appropriate only when the movant\\nshows there is no genuine dispute as to any material facts and\\nis entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Horton v. Pobjecky,\\n883 F.3d 941, 948 (7th Cir. 2018); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). We re-\\nview de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment,\\nconsidering the facts in a light favorable to Lisle and drawing\\n\\f14 No. 18-1595\\n\\nall reasonable inferences in his favor. Horton, 883 F.3d at 948.\\nAt this stage, we may not assess the credibility of the wit-\\nnesses or balance the weight of conflicting evidence. Palmer v.\\nFranz, 928 F.3d 560, 565 (7th Cir. 2019) (reversing summary\\njudgment).\\n The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual pun-\\nishments that involve the unnecessary and wanton infliction\\nof pain. Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 346 (1981). The pro-\\nhibition also includes acts “totally without penological justifi-\\ncation.” Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 737 (2002), quoting Rhodes,\\n452 U.S. at 346. This prohibition reaches wanton infliction of\\npain and deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs\\nof prisoners. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976); Petties v.\\nCarter, 836 F.3d 722, 727–28 (7th Cir. 2016) (en banc).\\n Lisle’s claim against Nurse South lies at the intersection of\\ndeliberate and pointless infliction of psychological injury and\\ndeliberate indifference in medical care. In ordinary medical\\ncare cases under the Eighth Amendment, “we perform a two-\\nstep analysis, first examining whether a plaintiff suffered\\nfrom an objectively serious medical condition, and then deter-\\nmining whether the individual defendant was deliberately in-\\ndifferent to that condition.” Petties, 836 F.3d at 727–28, citing\\nFarmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). In applying this\\ntest, “we look at the totality of an inmate’s medical care when\\nconsidering whether that care evidences deliberate indiffer-\\nence to serious medical needs.” Petties, 836 F.3d at 728–29.\\n At the first step, the risk of suicide is an objectively serious\\nmedical condition, and it is well established that inmates have\\nthe right to be free from deliberate indifference to this risk\\nwhile in custody. See Estate of Clark v. Walker, 865 F.3d 544, 551\\n(7th Cir. 2017) (inmate’s “right to be free from deliberate\\n\\fNo. 18-1595 15\\n\\nindifference to his risk of suicide while he was in custody was\\nclearly established at the time of his death in 2012”); Woodward\\nv. Correctional Medical Servs. of Illinois, Inc., 368 F.3d 917, 926–\\n27, 929 (7th Cir. 2004) (jail managers would be guilty of delib-\\nerate indifference if they took no precautions against the pos-\\nsibility of an inmate’s suicide); Cavalieri v. Shepard, 321 F.3d\\n616, 623 (7th Cir. 2003) (“no doubt” the right of an inmate to\\nbe free from deliberate indifference to his risk of suicide was\\nclearly established in 1998); Hall v. Ryan, 957 F.2d 402, 404–05\\n(7th Cir. 1992) (“It was clearly established in 1986 that police\\nofficers could not be deliberately indifferent to a detainee who\\nis in need of medical attention because of a mental illness or\\nwho is a substantial suicide risk.”).\\n At the second step, “[w]here the harm at issue is a suicide\\nor attempted suicide, the second, subjective component of an\\nEighth Amendment claim requires a dual showing that the\\ndefendant: (1) subjectively knew the prisoner was at substan-\\ntial risk of committing suicide and (2) intentionally disre-\\ngarded the risk.” Collins v. Seeman, 462 F.3d 757, 761 (7th Cir.\\n2006). This requires “more than mere or gross negligence, but\\nless than purposeful infliction of harm.” Matos v. O'Sullivan,\\n335 F.3d 553, 557 (7th Cir. 2003).\\n Proving actual subjective knowledge of the risk is often\\ndifficult, see Petties, 836 F.3d at 728, but not here. Nurse South\\nwas responsible for monitoring and evaluating Lisle while he\\nwas on suicide watch. Lisle met his burden on this half of the\\nsubjective prong. 3\\n\\n\\n3 South argues that Lisle was never in any real danger because he was on\\nsuicide watch. The argument is both speculative and irrelevant to the\\nclaim that her statements were intended to cause him psychological pain.\\n\\f16 No. 18-1595\\n\\n Lisle also offered evidence to support the second compo-\\nnent of this prong—that South intentionally disregarded the\\nrisk of suicide. He need not offer evidence of purposeful in-\\nfliction of harm. Here, Lisle alleges that South was deliber-\\nately indifferent to his risk of suicide by taunting him for be-\\ning unsuccessful and actually encouraging Lisle to kill him-\\nself while he was in the infirmary on suicide watch. Assuming\\nLisle’s account is true, as we must, South’s statements could\\nbe deemed cruel infliction of mental pain and deliberate in-\\ndifference to his risk of suicide, making summary judgment\\nimproper.\\n The district court granted summary judgment, quoting\\nour statement that, “Standing alone, simple verbal harass-\\nment does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment, de-\\nprive a prisoner of a protected liberty interest or deny a pris-\\noner equal protection of the laws.” DeWalt v. Carter, 224 F.3d\\n\\n\\nThat alleged pain did not depend on Lisle’s ability to follow through on\\nhis suicidal intent. See Edwards v. Snyder, 478 F.3d 827, 831 (7th Cir. 2007)\\n(reversing dismissal; prisoner’s receipt of some medical care does not au-\\ntomatically defeat claim of deliberate indifference; fact-finder could infer\\nintentional mistreatment was likely to seriously aggravate a medical con-\\ndition); see also Jordan v. Gardner, 986 F.2d 1521, 1526 (9th Cir. 1993) (find-\\ning deliberate indifference to female inmate’s psychological vulnerabili-\\nties when cross-gender searches exacerbated symptoms of “pre-existing\\nmental conditions”). Also, unfortunately, there is no guarantee an inmate\\nis safe from the risk of suicide while on suicide watch. Suicide-prevention\\nmeasures reduce opportunities to commit suicide, but according to a 2010\\nstudy conducted by the National Institute of Corrections, about 7.5% of\\ninmates who committed suicide in 2005 and 2006 were on suicide watch.\\nNational Institute of Corrections, U.S. Department of Justice, National\\nStudy of Jail Suicide 20 Years Later, https://info.nicic.gov/nicrp/sys-\\ntem/files/024308.pdf at page 27, April 2010.\\n\\fNo. 18-1595 17\\n\\n607, 612 (7th Cir. 2000) (officer allegedly used racially and sex-\\nually derogatory language). Since DeWalt, however, we have\\nsaid that its language was too broad, explaining: “The propo-\\nsition that verbal harassment cannot amount to cruel and un-\\nusual punishment is incorrect.” Beal v. Foster, 803 F.3d 356, 357\\n(7th Cir. 2015).\\n Our analysis in Hughes and Beal confirms that the “simple\\nverbal harassment” language of DeWalt would not preclude a\\nreasonable jury from finding deliberate indifference here. In\\nHughes v. Scott, 816 F.3d 955 (7th Cir. 2016), we reversed dis-\\nmissal of an inmate’s claim where he had been committed in-\\nvoluntarily to a facility for individuals suffering from mental\\ndisorders. The plaintiff alleged that the staff called him “igno-\\nrant,” “stupid,” and a “moron.” Id. at 957. They also told him\\nhis life would go better if he stopped filing grievances about\\nhis treatment at the facility. We distinguished DeWalt and de-\\ntermined that the alleged statements to Hughes went beyond\\nsimple verbal harassment because of his vulnerability: “Just\\nas police when interrogating children are held to understand\\nthe mental and psychological differences between adults and\\nchildrenYso staff of an institution that houses and treats per-\\nsons suffering from mental disorders should be held to un-\\nderstand that they are dealing with psychologically impaired\\npersons.” Id. at 957 (internal citation omitted).\\n In Beal v. Foster, a male inmate brought an Eighth Amend-\\nment claim against a male officer who he claimed made sexual\\ninnuendos about him in front of other inmates. 803 F.3d at\\n358. The district court dismissed on the theory that the state-\\nments were simple verbal harassment. We reversed. The\\nguard’s statements and behavior could have been understood\\nby other inmates as implying Beal was homosexual. Beal\\n\\f18 No. 18-1595\\n\\nfeared an increased risk of sexual assaults by other inmates,\\nand could have inflicted “significant psychological harm on\\nhim” in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Id. at 359.\\n In support of this conclusion, Beal used hypotheticals to\\nshow that verbal harassment can rise to a level that violates\\nthe Eighth Amendment. For instance, it would be cruel and\\nunusual for a correctional officer to tell an inmate with a se-\\nvere headache that the doctor had told the officer the inmate\\nactually had terminal brain cancer. Id. at 357. Or suppose a\\nguard tells an inmate falsely that his family has been killed in\\na car crash. Id. These classic examples would violate the\\nEighth Amendment despite the lack of physical abuse. In\\nother words, “the alleged pain [sufficient to constitute cruel\\npunishment] may be physical or psychological.” Id. at 357–58,\\nquoting Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012);\\nsee also Jordan v. Gardner, 986 F.2d 1521, 1528 (9th Cir. 1993)\\n(en banc) (affirming permanent injunction against cross-gen-\\nder searches of female inmates; prison officials acted with de-\\nliberate indifference to harm that cross-gender clothed body\\nsearches were likely to cause female inmates who had been\\nvictims of sexual abuse).\\n With the understanding that the Eighth Amendment also\\nprotects psychologically vulnerable inmates against psycho-\\nlogical pain deliberately inflicted by correctional officers,\\nNurse South’s alleged statements, if made, went beyond\\n“simple verbal harassment.” She is alleged to have taunted\\nand encouraged an inmate known to be suicidal and in the\\nmidst of a mental health crisis to take his own life. As his\\nnurse on suicide watch, she was uniquely situated to aggra-\\nvate Lisle’s condition by using her specialized knowledge to\\ntarget his psychological vulnerabilities, causing him\\n\\fNo. 18-1595 19\\n\\npsychological pain. Nurse South denies making these state-\\nments, as noted, but the factual disagreement simply under-\\nscores the issues of material fact to be decided at trial.\\n We are not persuaded by Nurse South’s attempts to distin-\\nguish Beal and Hughes. She points out that Beal involved sex-\\nual harassment and fear of sexual attacks. Thus it was not\\n“simple verbal harassment” because it involved the danger of\\nexposing the inmate to sexual assault. We do not see a consti-\\ntutionally relevant line between vulnerability to sexual at-\\ntacks and vulnerability to suicide. In both situations, prison\\nstaff would be exploiting a known vulnerability to create a\\ndanger or harm that cannot have any legitimate penological\\npurpose.\\n South also points out that Hughes and Beal reversed dis-\\nmissals on the pleadings rather than after summary judg-\\nment. Such differences in procedural posture can be im-\\nportant, but not for this question of law. See also Olson v.\\nBloomberg, 339 F.3d 730, 737–38 (8th Cir. 2003) (affirming de-\\nnial of summary judgment; reasonable jury could infer delib-\\nerate indifference to risk of suicide where correctional officer\\nsaid, “you do what you got to do,” when inmate said he\\nwould hang himself).\\n Finally, Nurse South points to the medical care she pro-\\nvided to help Lisle while he was on suicide watch as evidence\\nthat she was not deliberately indifferent to his risk of suicide.\\nFor instance, she checked his vital signs regularly, performed\\nneurological examinations, and requested an examination by\\na mental health physician. This evidence may well be power-\\nful at trial, but it is not conclusive as a matter of law on a mo-\\ntion for summary judgment. Evidence of “some medical care\\ndoes not automatically defeat a claim of deliberate\\n\\f20 No. 18-1595\\n\\nindifference if a fact finder could infer the treatment was ‘so\\nblatantly inappropriate as to evidence intentional mistreat-\\nment likely to seriously aggravate’ a medical condition.” Ed-\\nwards v. Snyder, 478 F.3d 827, 831 (7th Cir. 2007), quoting\\nSnipes v. DeTella, 95 F.3d 586, 592 (7th Cir. 1996). Encouraging\\na suicidal inmate to kill himself, if that in fact happened,\\nwould fit this description.\\n We intend this holding to be narrow. Repugnant words,\\nlike those alleged in DeWalt, will seldom rise to an Eighth\\nAmendment violation. As we acknowledged in Beal, “most\\nverbal harassment by jail or prison guards does not rise to the\\nlevel of cruel and unusual punishment.” 803 F.3d at 358. Re-\\nlationships between prisoners and prison staff are not always\\nmarked by genteel language and good manners. The Eighth\\nAmendment nevertheless can apply to an extreme case where\\nmedical staff use an inmate’s known psychological vulnera-\\nbility to cause psychological anguish.\\n On remand the district court may need to consider what\\nimpact, if any, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e) may have on these claims.\\nSection 1997e(e) provides: “No Federal civil action may be\\nbrought by a prisoner confined in a jail, prison, or other cor-\\nrectional facility, for mental or emotional injury suffered\\nwhile in custody without a prior showing of physical injury\\nor the commission of a sexual act.” We have read this provi-\\nsion to apply only to compensatory damages, not nominal or\\npunitive damages involving no physical injury. Calhoun v. De-\\nTella, 319 F.3d 936, 941 (7th Cir. 2003). We are not alone in in-\\nterpreting § 1997e(e) this way. See Thompson v. Carter, 284 F.3d\\n411, 418 (2d Cir. 2002) (punitive damages for Eighth Amend-\\nment violations not barred); Oliver v. Keller, 289 F.3d 623, 630\\n(9th Cir. 2002) (punitive damages for constitutional violation\\n\\fNo. 18-1595 21\\n\\nnot barred); Doe v. Delie, 257 F.3d 309, 314 (3d Cir. 2001)\\n(“§ 1997e(e) does not bar claims seeking nominal damages to\\nvindicate constitutional rights, nor claims seeking punitive\\ndamages to deter or punish egregious violations of constitu-\\ntional rights”); Searles v. Van Bebber, 251 F.3d 869, 881 (10th Cir.\\n2001) (“salient fact is that Congress simply did not choose to\\nprovide a restriction on punitive damages”).\\n C. Equal Protection\\n Lisle next claims Lieutenants Samuel and Brookman vio-\\nlated his Fourteenth Amendment rights by placing him in\\nsegregation but not his white cellmate. “Prisoners are pro-\\ntected under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth\\nAmendment from invidious discrimination based on race.”\\nWolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974). Protection from\\ndisparate treatment based upon race does not vanish merely\\nbecause a person is incarcerated. Id. at 555.\\n To avoid summary judgment on this claim, Lisle needed\\nto come forward with evidence that would allow a reasonable\\njury to infer that the defendants intentionally treated him dif-\\nferently because of his race. In Ortiz v. Werner Enterprises, Inc.,\\n834 F.3d 760 (7th Cir. 2016), our opinion explained that courts\\ndeciding whether a defendant acted with a discriminatory\\nmotive (in Ortiz, an employment decision) should avoid get-\\nting entangled by formal methods and distinctions between\\ndirect and circumstantial evidence. Instead, we explained, the\\nstandard is whether all the evidence “would permit a reason-\\nable factfinder to conclude that plaintiff’s race, ethnicity, sex,\\nreligion, or other proscribed factor caused the discharge or\\nother adverse employment action.” Id. at 765. The same rea-\\nsoning and standard apply to a claim of intentional and un-\\nconstitutional race discrimination by prison officials.\\n\\f22 No. 18-1595\\n\\n If the disciplinary decisions by Lieutenant Brookman (per-\\nhaps aided by Lieutenant Samuel) were motivated by race,\\nthat would violate the Equal Protection Clause. Brown v. Budz,\\n398 F.3d 904, 916–17 (7th Cir. 2005); see also Harris v. Greer,\\n750 F.2d 617, 618 (7th Cir. 1984) (“A policy of deliberate racial\\nsegregation of prisoners would raise serious questions under\\nthe equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”);\\nWilliams v. Lane, 851 F.2d 867, 881–82 (7th Cir. 1988) (unequal\\ntreatment of inmates without rational relation to legitimate\\npenal interest violates Equal Protection).\\n Lisle, however, has not presented evidence that would al-\\nlow a jury to infer reasonably that Lieutenants Samuel or\\nBrookman acted based on racial animus. Starting first with\\nSamuel, nothing in the record could lead a reasonable jury to\\ndetermine that he even had the authority to decide that Lisle\\nwould be placed in disciplinary segregation and his cellmate\\nwould not. The disciplinary charges for Lisle and his cellmate\\nwere both signed by an officer who is not a party in this action.\\nSamuel’s only involvement in Lisle’s segregation was that he\\nescorted him there pending his disciplinary hearing.\\n Lieutenant Brookman served as one of two members of the\\nAdjustment Committee that oversaw Lisle’s disciplinary\\nhearing. Lisle claims Brookman denied him the right to call a\\nwitness during the disciplinary hearing because Lisle is black.\\nLisle introduced no evidence, though, suggesting that Brook-\\nman’s failure to call Samuel was based on race or that Brook-\\nman permitted similarly situated white inmates to call wit-\\nnesses while not allowing black inmates to do so. Undisputed\\nevidence instead indicates the decision was based on the al-\\nleged threats and abuse that the correctional officers appar-\\nently found credible. In this instance, correctional officers\\n\\fNo. 18-1595 23\\n\\nbelieved the white inmate, not the black inmate. Without\\nmore evidence of racial motive, the officers’ judgments about\\nwhom to believe are not sufficient to allow a jury to infer racial\\nbias. Lisle’s claim of race discrimination is supported only by\\nspeculation and conjecture, which is not enough to survive\\nsummary judgment. Boston v. U.S. Steel Corp., 816 F.3d 455,\\n466 (7th Cir. 2016). We affirm the district court’s grant of sum-\\nmary judgment on Lisle’s equal protection claims.\\n D. Deprivation of Liberty Without Due Process\\n Finally, the district court correctly granted summary judg-\\nment on the due process claim against Lieutenant Brookman.\\nWhen an inmate raises a due process claim for a disciplinary\\nproceeding, he must demonstrate: (1) the deprivation of a lib-\\nerty interest; and (2) the procedures he was afforded were\\nconstitutionally deficient. Scruggs v. Jordan, 485 F.3d 934, 939\\n(7th Cir. 2007). Lisle fails at the first step, so we do not address\\nwhether the procedures were constitutionally deficient.\\n Lisle’s claimed liberty interest was avoiding assignment to\\na segregation cell. Avoiding segregation can constitute a pro-\\ntected liberty interest, but the facts matter. Hardaway v. Mey-\\nerhoff, 734 F.3d 740, 743 (7th Cir. 2013), citing Marion v. Colum-\\nbia Correction Inst., 559 F.3d 693, 697 (7th Cir. 2009). This inter-\\nest is triggered only when the confinement imposes “atypical\\nand significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordi-\\nnary incidents of prison life.” Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472,\\n484 (1995). When considering whether disciplinary segrega-\\ntion imposes atypical and significant hardships, we look to\\nboth the duration of the segregation and the conditions en-\\ndured. Marion, 559 F.3d at 697.\\n\\f24 No. 18-1595\\n\\n First, the duration of segregation was not an atypical or\\nsignificant hardship. We have found that, depending on the\\nconditions of confinement and whether there were any addi-\\ntional punishments, a period of segregation considerably\\nshorter than four months may satisfy this requirement. Kervin\\nv. Barnes, 787 F.3d 833, 836 (7th Cir. 2015) (collecting cases).\\nHowever, we have also found longer durations did not. Mar-\\nion, 559 F.3d at 698 (six months of segregation is not such an\\nextreme term as to trigger due process rights without more).\\nA sentence of four months in segregation for the discovery of\\ncontraband is not so atypical and significantly harsh that it\\ncreates a liberty interest.\\n Second, Lisle has not shown that the conditions of his con-\\nfinement in segregation themselves imposed atypical and sig-\\nnificant hardships. Lisle needed to show that the conditions\\nof his confinement in his segregated cell deviated substan-\\ntially from the ordinary conditions of prison life. Sandin, 515\\nU.S. at 486 (inmates must demonstrate that punishment con-\\nstituted dramatic departure from basic conditions of prison\\nlife to present atypical and significant hardship such that it\\nwould create liberty interest); Kervin, 787 F.3d at 836 (“the crit-\\nical question is how far the treatment of the complaining in-\\nmate deviates from [the] ordinary conditions” of a high-secu-\\nrity prison and the conditions under which prisoner is actu-\\nally held). In short, if the disciplinary measures do not “sub-\\nstantially worsen the conditions of confinement” of an in-\\nmate, then he has not been deprived of a protected liberty in-\\nterest. Miller v. Dobier, 634 F.3d 412, 414–15 (7th Cir. 2011).\\n We agree with the district court that Lisle did not offer ev-\\nidence that would allow a reasonable jury to find the condi-\\ntions of his segregation imposed atypical and significant\\n\\fNo. 18-1595 25\\n\\nhardships. The vague description of his cell, including rust on\\nthe bars and “corroded feces” in the toilet, does not itself re-\\nveal much. Regardless, a jury could not reasonably infer that\\nthese conditions were unique to cells in the segregation unit\\nor that these conditions caused Lisle any significant hardship.\\nLisle is correct that we do not find conditions are typical and\\nacceptable merely because they do not rise to the most ex-\\ntreme conditions, but he needed to offer some evidence that\\nwould allow a jury to determine that the conditions in segre-\\ngation deviated substantially from ordinary conditions of his\\nconfinement.\\n Lisle further argues that placing an inmate in a cell that\\nexacerbates his depression and suicidal urges without provid-\\ning a crisis team implicates his liberty interest. We need not\\ndecide whether this is correct because the record does not re-\\nflect Lisle’s mental health crisis was exacerbated by the con-\\nditions of his confinement. Instead, the record shows Lisle at-\\ntributes his frustration with the disciplinary hearing and the\\ngrievance process as the trigger for his worsening mental\\nhealth.\\n * * *\\n To sum up, we REVERSE summary judgment for Nurse\\nSouth on the Eighth Amendment claim based on her alleged\\ntaunts. On the Batson claim, we VACATE the portions of the\\njudgment based on the trial verdict and REMAND for addi-\\ntional findings on the credibility of the defendants’ race-neu-\\ntral explanations for their peremptory strikes of black pro-\\nspective jurors, and for such further proceedings as are\\nneeded consistent with this opinion, which may include a\\n\\f26 No. 18-1595\\n\\nnew trial on the claims that were tried. In all other respects\\nthe judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 4\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n4 Lisle’s deliberate indifference claim against the remaining defendants\\nfor allegedly failing to address his grievances was not briefed on appeal\\nand thus waived. United States v. Webster, 775 F.3d 897, 904 (7th Cir. 2015)\\n(arguments not raised in party’s opening brief are waived); see also Ow-\\nens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 953 (7th Cir. 2011) (mere mishandling of pris-\\noner’s grievance does not support claim).\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4422300/\", \"author_raw\": \"David Frank Hamilton\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"HAMILTON"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"BARRETT"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":""},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645047/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":8,"string":"8"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Steven D. LISLE, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William WELBORN, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-08-01\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-1595\nSTEVEN D. LISLE, JR.,\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\n v.\n\nWILLIAM WELBORN, et al.,\n Defendants-Appellees.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Southern District of Illinois.\n No. 3:15-CV-00965 — Michael J. Reagan, Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED MARCH 29, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 1, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before HAMILTON, BARRETT, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.\n HAMILTON, Circuit Judge. This appeal presents issues stem-\nming from a prison’s discipline of a prisoner and his later su-\nicide attempts. The story began in 2014 when correctional of-\nficers at the Menard Correctional Facility found contraband\nalcohol in the cell of plaintiff Steven D. Lisle, Jr. Lisle’s cell-\nmate at first took responsibility for the contraband but later\nrecanted outside of Lisle’s presence. He said instead that Lisle\nhad been abusing him and had forced him to take the blame\n\f2 No. 18-1595\n\nfor the alcohol. In disciplinary proceedings, Lisle later asked\nto call a witness to testify about his cellmate’s initial admis-\nsions. His requests were ignored. Lisle, who is black, was sen-\ntenced to four months in disciplinary segregation. His cell-\nmate, who was white, was not disciplined.\n While in segregation, Lisle attempted to commit suicide\nthree times. His third attempt was nearly successful, and he\nwas placed on suicide watch in the prison infirmary. While\nthere, Lisle claims, a nurse taunted him for his failed suicide\nattempts and encouraged him to try again. Lisle filed this suit\nalleging that he was punished based on his race, that he was\ndeprived of liberty without due process of law, and that the\nprison staff’s conduct in the wake of his mental health crisis—\nincluding the nurse’s statements—amounted to cruel and un-\nusual punishment.\n The district court granted summary judgment on several\nclaims but held a jury trial on Lisle’s claims for deliberate in-\ndifference to a serious medical need. During jury selection,\ndefense lawyers used peremptory strikes to remove three of\nthe four black potential jurors. After the jury was selected, but\nbefore it was sworn and the venire released, Lisle’s counsel\nobjected pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986),\nchallenging the use of peremptory strikes against the black\njurors. The judge denied the objection as untimely.\n Lisle appeals the summary judgment decision and seeks a\nnew trial based on his Batson claim. We agree that his Batson\nclaim was timely, and we cannot find that the erroneous de-\nnial was harmless. We remand for an evidentiary hearing on\nthe Batson claim and, if necessary, a new trial on all claims that\nwere tried. We also reverse summary judgment for the nurse\n\fNo. 18-1595 3\n\non the taunting claim. We affirm all other aspects of the judg-\nment.\nI. Factual & Procedural Background\n A. Cell Search & Disciplinary Proceeding\n To the extent we review the partial grant of summary\njudgment, we review the facts in the light most favorable to\nLisle as the non-moving party, giving him the benefit of con-\nflicts in the evidence. Spaine v. Community Contacts, Inc., 756\nF.3d 542, 544 (7th Cir. 2014). Steven D. Lisle, Jr. was an inmate\nat the Menard Correctional Center in Illinois, where he shared\na cell with another inmate. On August 12, 2014, when Lisle\nwas at the prison gym, correctional officers searched his cell\nand found contraband: a trash bag of liquid that contained 7%\nalcohol. Two correctional officers took Lisle to segregation to\nawait a disciplinary hearing.\n On the way to the segregation unit, he crossed paths with\nhis cellmate, who had also been at the gym when the search\noccurred. Lisle asked his cellmate if he was going to “take his\nweight” (claim responsibility) for the contraband. The cell-\nmate said yes and told Lisle that he had “already told them\nwhatever they found” in the cell was his. Lieutenant Michael\nSamuel was within earshot of this conversation. Lisle told\nLieutenant Samuel that he was going to call him as a witness\nat his disciplinary hearing. Samuel told Lisle he would testify.\n Outside of Lisle’s presence, though, his cellmate later re-\ncanted. He said he had claimed the alcohol was his only be-\ncause Lisle had put him “through some serious hell.” The cell-\nmate revealed extensive bruising all over his body that he\nclaimed was the result of Lisle’s physical and sexual abuse.\nHe expressed fear for his life. The cellmate was placed in\n\f4 No. 18-1595\n\nprotective custody and a rape kit was used to test him. He was\nnever placed in segregation, and the Adjustment Committee\nfound him not guilty for the contraband. Lieutenant Brook-\nman testified in this case that Lisle was not informed of the\nallegations his cellmate made because disclosing to an alleged\nabuser that his victim has reported the abuse is “what gets\npeople hurt in prison.”\n Once Lisle was placed in segregation, a correctional officer\nprovided him with a copy of the disciplinary report outlining\nthe charged violations. Lisle asked for a pen so that he could\nsign the report and ask to have Lieutenant Samuel testify at\nthe disciplinary hearing. The officer refused, so Lisle made an\noral request that Samuel be called to testify. The next day,\nLisle met with his counselor and again made an oral request\nto call Lieutenant Samuel as a witness. His counselor for-\nwarded the request to Internal Affairs, which in turn faxed the\nrequest to the Adjustment Committee.\n Two days after the search, the disciplinary hearing was\nheld before the Adjustment Committee comprised of Lieuten-\nant Kent Brookman and another official whom Lisle has not\nsued. Lieutenant Samuel did not attend the disciplinary hear-\ning. Brookman indicated he had already spoken with Samuel\nand would do so again. 1\n The Adjustment Committee found Lisle guilty and sen-\ntenced him to four months of disciplinary segregation and\nfour months of reduced privileges, such as commissary re-\nstrictions, and six months of contact visit restriction. Despite\nLisle’s request that Samuel testify at least three times, the\n\n 1 It is not clear from the record whether Brookman actually spoke with\n\nSamuel or not. For purposes of summary judgment, we assume he did not.\n\fNo. 18-1595 5\n\nAdjustment Committee’s final report indicated that he had\nnot requested a witness.\n B. Lisle’s Mental Health Crisis\n While in segregation, Lisle attempted to commit suicide\nwith a makeshift rope three times over the course of three\ndays. He claimed that being denied the chance to present a\nwitness at his hearing and the slow response to the post-hear-\ning grievances he filed caused him to become depressed. He\nrepeatedly asked for a mental health and crisis team but did\nnot receive intervening assistance before his third suicide at-\ntempt.\n Lisle described his segregation cell as being poorly venti-\nlated, with rusty bars and with corroded feces in the toilet. He\nwas not given a brush to clean the toilet, and he had access to\nfewer cleaning supplies due to his loss of commissary privi-\nleges. He also had fewer privileges than when he was in gen-\neral population, such as loss of access to the gym and fewer\nopportunities to go outside or shower. He had a cellmate\nthroughout his entire stay in “segregation.”\n Lisle described his first two suicide attempts in a deposi-\ntion taken April 25, 2017. He said his first suicide attempt on\nSeptember 3, 2014 failed when the makeshift rope he tied\naround his neck snapped under his weight. Lisle alleges Lieu-\ntenant Welborn and Nurse Reeves witnessed the attempt.\nLisle claims he informed them he was attempting to kill him-\nself and handed Reeves a suicide note. According to Lisle,\nthey both walked away without a word.\n The next day, Lisle again attempted suicide unsuccess-\nfully, this time, he says, in the presence of correctional officer\nChristopher McClure and another nurse, Jodi Hormann. Lisle\n\f6 No. 18-1595\n\nagain claims he handed the nurse a suicide note and told them\nboth that he intended to kill himself. In a repeat of the day\nbefore, Lisle says, the two prison staff members simply\nwalked away. Before Lisle attempted suicide a third time, he\ngave another officer, Cale Young, a third suicide note and in-\nformed the officer that he was going to attempt suicide again.\nAccording to Lisle, Young put the note in his pocket and\nwalked away.\n The night of September 5, 2014, Lisle attempted to commit\nsuicide a third time while his cellmate was asleep. This time,\na correctional officer and a medical staff member saw him\nhanging in his cell and yelled for his cellmate to help. His cell-\nmate helped the officers support Lisle by his legs to give the\nofficers time to remove the rope from his neck. Lisle was taken\nto the infirmary, where the medical staff noted he had injuries\non his neck that appeared several days old, consistent with\nprior suicide attempts. He remained in the infirmary and was\nplaced on suicide watch.\n On the instructions of the medical director, Lisle was\nplaced on “strip cell suicide watch,” which meant he was not\nprovided a mattress and could use only a suicide-resistant\nblanket. He was also checked every ten minutes, with vital\nsigns checked every two hours. Jana South was a nurse work-\ning in the infirmary when Lisle was admitted. Lisle testified\nthat when Nurse South evaluated him a few hours later, she\nrepeatedly mocked him for failing to kill himself. She la-\nmented that Lisle had not succeeded in his suicide attempts,\ntold him he should have done it “properly,” and said he\nshould “do a better job next time.” Later, Lisle also com-\nplained that his back hurt from sleeping on the steel slab with-\nout a mattress and requested a blanket because his cell was\n\fNo. 18-1595 7\n\ntoo cold. South taunted him, saying that if he wanted a mat-\ntress, he should not be on suicide watch and that he should\nnot care about being cold or uncomfortable since he was try-\ning to kill himself. South denied making any of these state-\nments.\n Despite the dispute about what Nurse South said, it is un-\ndisputed that she continued to provide care to Lisle. She eval-\nuated him several times, took his vital signs, and conducted\nat least one neurological examination. After her first evalua-\ntion of Lisle, South also called a mental health physician to\nevaluate Lisle, which occurred the next morning. Lisle re-\nmained in the infirmary for six days.\n C. Partial Summary Judgment and Trial\n Lisle sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, bringing five counts\nagainst fourteen prison staff members. First, he claimed Lieu-\ntenant Brookman, as chair of the Adjustment Committee, de-\nprived him of a protected liberty interest without due process\nof law when he failed to call Lieutenant Samuel to testify.\nLisle also alleged that Lieutenants Samuel and Brookman and\nthe second officer who brought Lisle to segregation discrimi-\nnated against him based on his race. Count III alleged an\nEighth Amendment claim against Reeves, Welborn, Hor-\nmann, McClure, Young, and South, for their failure to obtain\nmedical help for Lisle when he was suicidal, and for Nurse\nSouth’s verbal abuse of Lisle when he was on suicide watch.\nHe also sued Nurse South based on his experiences in the in-\nfirmary and her alleged refusal to call a doctor when he re-\nquested one. Finally, he alleged that several prison officials\nviolated his constitutional rights in their handling of multiple\ngrievances he had filed.\n\f8 No. 18-1595\n\n The defendants moved for summary judgment. The dis-\ntrict court granted the motion in part on the due process claim\nbecause Lisle failed to show that confinement in segregation\ndeprived him of a protected liberty interest. The district court\nalso granted summary judgment for the equal protection de-\nfendants, finding no evidence of racial motive in any defend-\nant’s actions.\n The district court dismissed the deliberate indifference\nclaim against Nurse South for her conduct in the infirmary.\nThe district court reasoned that under DeWalt v. Carter, 224\nF.3d 607, 612 (7th Cir. 2000), the alleged taunting would be\n“reprehensible,” but would amount only to “simple verbal\nharassment,” which would not amount to cruel and unusual\npunishment. The court explained: “though South may have\nmade statements suggesting Plaintiff kill himself, she none-\ntheless did her job and treated Plaintiff. Defendant South\ntherefore did not exhibit deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s\nrisk of suicide.” The court denied summary judgment on the\nclaims of deliberate indifference against the prison staff mem-\nbers for their alleged failure to act when Lisle was suicidal.\n The court granted summary judgment dismissing most of\nLisle’s conditions-of-confinement claims, but the court denied\nsummary judgment on his claim that Nurse South refused to\ncall a doctor. Finally, the court dismissed the claims against\nvarious prison officials for their failure to act on the griev-\nances he submitted because Lisle failed to provide sufficient\nevidence to support these claims.\n The surviving claims were tried to a jury. During voir dire,\nonly four African-American veniremen were called. The two\nteams of defense counsel used three of their six peremptory\nstrikes against black panel members. Just after the jurors were\n\fNo. 18-1595 9\n\nselected, but before they were sworn and the venire released,\nLisle’s attorney objected pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky, 476\nU.S. 79 (1986), that those three strikes were racially motivated.\nThe district court denied Lisle’s objection as untimely. The\ncourt told Lisle he “should have made [the objections] while\nwe were doing it. I think you waived at this juncture. We can\nmake a record. I know we do have an African American on\nthe jury.”\n The court then addressed defense counsel, explaining that\nif they wanted “to make a responseY I am happy to listen to\nrace neutral responsesY. It is probably a good opportunity for\nyou to respond if you have a race neutral response you want\nto give or you don’t have to respond at all.” Counsel for the\nmedical defendants briefly explained that they struck two\nblack jurors who had close family members who had been in-\ncarcerated. Counsel doubted those jurors’ abilities to be fair\nto the defendants in this case, despite the jurors’ assertions\nthat the family members’ experiences would not affect their\ndecision. The judge said that the reasons proffered were race\nneutral, but he did not make any express finding that he be-\nlieved the offered reasons were honest.\n After a three-day trial, a jury found for Lisle on the claim\nthat Reeves, Welborn, Hormann, and McClure were deliber-\nately indifferent to his suicide attempts, but the jury awarded\nhim only $300 in compensatory damages. The jury found in\nfavor of Nurse South on the claim that she denied Lisle a phy-\nsician. The jury also found for Young on the claim of deliber-\nate indifference to Lisle’s suicide attempt and for Hill on the\nclaim that she was deliberately indifferent to a serious risk of\nharm to Lisle by ignoring his grievances.\n\f10 No. 18-1595\n\n On appeal, Lisle argues that his Batson challenge was\ntimely and that summary judgment for the defendants was\nimproper on some claims: whether South’s comments vio-\nlated the Eighth Amendment, whether Lieutenants Brookman\nand Samuel violated the Equal Protection Clause, and\nwhether Brookman deprived him of liberty without due pro-\ncess when he refused to call Samuel as a witness.\nII. Analysis\n We begin with the district court’s ruling on the Batson chal-\nlenge before analyzing its decisions to grant summary judg-\nment on the Eighth Amendment, equal protection, and due\nprocess claims.\n A. Batson Challenge\n In Batson v. Kentucky, the Supreme Court held that “the\nState denies a black defendant equal protection of the laws\nwhen it puts him on trial before a jury from which members\nof his race have been purposefully excluded.” 476 U.S. 79, 85\n(1986). Batson has been extended to civil cases, so peremptory\nstrikes simply may not be used on account of race. Foster v.\nChatman, 136 S. Ct. 1737, 1747 (2016) (“The ‘Constitution for-\nbids striking even a single prospective juror for a discrimina-\ntory purpose.’”), quoting Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472, 478\n(2008); Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., 500 U.S. 614, 631\n(1991) (Batson applies to civil cases).\n A Batson claim is analyzed in a three-step process in the\ntrial court. First, if a party suspects peremptory strikes are be-\ning used for discriminatory reasons, he must object and make\na prima facie case of racial discrimination. “[T]he burden at\nthe prima facie stage is low, requiring only circumstances rais-\ning a suspicion that discrimination occurred, even where\n\fNo. 18-1595 11\n\nthose circumstances are insufficient to indicate that it is more\nlikely than not that the challenges were used to discriminate.”\nUnited States v. Stephens, 421 F.3d 503, 512 (7th Cir. 2005). Sec-\nond, if the court finds the party has made a prima facie show-\ning of discrimination, the burden shifts to the striking party\nto provide a race-neutral reason for the strike. Flowers v. Mis-\nsissippi, 139 S. Ct. 2228, 2241 (2019). Third, the trial judge must\nthen “determine whether the Y stated reasons were the actual\nreasons or instead were a pretext for discrimination.” Id.\n The district court rejected Lisle’s Batson challenge as un-\ntimely. Trial judges have considerable flexibility and discre-\ntion in managing jury selection, including how they provide\na reasonable opportunity to raise Batson challenges. A reason-\nable opportunity to raise a Batson challenge is essential. This\nBatson challenge was not untimely. We have said that “[c]on-\ntemporaneous objection is imperative with respect to Batson\nclaims,” United States v. Chandler, 12 F.3d 1427, 1431 (7th Cir.\n1994), but contemporaneous does not mean instantaneous.\nRather, “the dismissal of the venire or the swearing of the jury\nis the presumptive deadline for making Batson challenges.”\nUnited States v. Williams, 819 F.3d 1026, 1029 (7th Cir. 2016).\n Lisle’s Batson challenge was timely. He objected within\nminutes after the third of four black potential jurors was\nstruck. He objected before the jury was sworn and before the\ndismissal of the venire. While Batson objections should be\nraised as early as practicable, the purpose of these challenges\nand our case law show that an objection to a discriminatory\nstrike need not occur immediately after a particular strike is\nmade. After all, “a ‘pattern’ of strikes against black jurors in-\ncluded in the particular venire might give rise to an inference\nof discrimination.” Flowers, 139 S. Ct. at 2246, quoting Batson,\n\f12 No. 18-1595\n\n476 U.S. at 97. The objecting party might not even be aware of\na violation until several strikes have been made, or even until\nall peremptory strikes have been exercised by all parties. The\ntrial judge erred in deeming Lisle’s Batson challenge untimely.\n We also cannot deem harmless here the erroneous denial\nof the Batson challenge as untimely. First, a racially motivated\nstrike of a single juror is forbidden and requires a new trial.\nFoster, 136 S. Ct. at 1747, quoting Snyder, 552 U.S. at 478. In\naddition, the trial judge’s sensible effort to “make a record” at\nthe time fell one critical step short. The judge invited defense\ncounsel to state for the record race-neutral reasons for their\nstrikes of the black jurors. They did so, and the judge said they\nwere indeed race-neutral reasons. The problem is that the\njudge never took the final step of making a finding on the spot\nabout the credibility of those reasons. See, e.g., Snyder, 552\nU.S. at 479 (reversing denial of Batson challenge where trial\njudge had never made finding on juror’s demeanor or credi-\nbility of proffered race-neutral reason for strike). And unfor-\ntunately, counsel did not ask the judge for that one further\nfinding. While we can glean some information from this rec-\nord, we have no way to know whether the attorneys were\ncredible. For example, the record does not show whether sim-\nilarly situated white jurors were struck for similar reasons,\nnor did the judge say anything about anyone’s demeanor. 2\n Because the district court did not make a credibility find-\ning here, we must remand for further findings and,\n\n 2\n We asked at oral argument whether any peremptory strikes were\nused on white jurors for similar reasons. Counsel for defendants re-\nsponded that Juror 9 was white and was also struck because he had a close\nfamily member who had been incarcerated. The district court, however,\nnoted on the record that Juror 9 was black. Supp. App. 340.\n\fNo. 18-1595 13\n\ndepending on the findings, a new trial. Morgan v. City of Chi-\ncago, 822 F.3d 317, 331 (7th Cir. 2016); United States v. Rutledge,\n648 F.3d 555, 560 (7th Cir. 2011) (“when we confront an evi-\ndentiary gap at step three, the ultimate Batson issue cannot be\nresolved without a remand”). If the district court cannot make\nthe necessary findings (perhaps because of delay or the vet-\neran trial judge’s retirement), or if the court ultimately finds\nthat the stated reasons were not credible, then the case must\nbe retried. See Rutledge, 648 F.3d at 562 (conviction must be\nvacated “if the passage of time precludes the district court\nfrom making such findings, or if it finds that the prosecutor’s\nreasons are not credible”); United States v. McMath, 559 F.3d\n657, 666 (7th Cir. 2009) (remand for findings rather than retry-\ning the case was appropriate remedy in light of court’s failure\nto make findings on race-neutral reasons when only a year\nhad passed); see also SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Abbott Labs.,\n740 F.3d 471, 489 (9th Cir. 2014) (remanding for a new trial\nafter Batson violation in civil case).\n B. Cruel and Unusual Punishment Claim Against Nurse South\n The district court granted summary judgment for Nurse\nSouth on the ground that simple verbal harassment cannot\nconstitute cruel and unusual punishment. For purposes of\nsummary judgment, we must assume South did make the\nstatements as Lisle claimed, encouraging Lisle to kill himself\nwhile he was on suicide watch under her care.\n Summary judgment is appropriate only when the movant\nshows there is no genuine dispute as to any material facts and\nis entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Horton v. Pobjecky,\n883 F.3d 941, 948 (7th Cir. 2018); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). We re-\nview de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment,\nconsidering the facts in a light favorable to Lisle and drawing\n\f14 No. 18-1595\n\nall reasonable inferences in his favor. Horton, 883 F.3d at 948.\nAt this stage, we may not assess the credibility of the wit-\nnesses or balance the weight of conflicting evidence. Palmer v.\nFranz, 928 F.3d 560, 565 (7th Cir. 2019) (reversing summary\njudgment).\n The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual pun-\nishments that involve the unnecessary and wanton infliction\nof pain. Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 346 (1981). The pro-\nhibition also includes acts “totally without penological justifi-\ncation.” Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 737 (2002), quoting Rhodes,\n452 U.S. at 346. This prohibition reaches wanton infliction of\npain and deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs\nof prisoners. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976); Petties v.\nCarter, 836 F.3d 722, 727–28 (7th Cir. 2016) (en banc).\n Lisle’s claim against Nurse South lies at the intersection of\ndeliberate and pointless infliction of psychological injury and\ndeliberate indifference in medical care. In ordinary medical\ncare cases under the Eighth Amendment, “we perform a two-\nstep analysis, first examining whether a plaintiff suffered\nfrom an objectively serious medical condition, and then deter-\nmining whether the individual defendant was deliberately in-\ndifferent to that condition.” Petties, 836 F.3d at 727–28, citing\nFarmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). In applying this\ntest, “we look at the totality of an inmate’s medical care when\nconsidering whether that care evidences deliberate indiffer-\nence to serious medical needs.” Petties, 836 F.3d at 728–29.\n At the first step, the risk of suicide is an objectively serious\nmedical condition, and it is well established that inmates have\nthe right to be free from deliberate indifference to this risk\nwhile in custody. See Estate of Clark v. Walker, 865 F.3d 544, 551\n(7th Cir. 2017) (inmate’s “right to be free from deliberate\n\fNo. 18-1595 15\n\nindifference to his risk of suicide while he was in custody was\nclearly established at the time of his death in 2012”); Woodward\nv. Correctional Medical Servs. of Illinois, Inc., 368 F.3d 917, 926–\n27, 929 (7th Cir. 2004) (jail managers would be guilty of delib-\nerate indifference if they took no precautions against the pos-\nsibility of an inmate’s suicide); Cavalieri v. Shepard, 321 F.3d\n616, 623 (7th Cir. 2003) (“no doubt” the right of an inmate to\nbe free from deliberate indifference to his risk of suicide was\nclearly established in 1998); Hall v. Ryan, 957 F.2d 402, 404–05\n(7th Cir. 1992) (“It was clearly established in 1986 that police\nofficers could not be deliberately indifferent to a detainee who\nis in need of medical attention because of a mental illness or\nwho is a substantial suicide risk.”).\n At the second step, “[w]here the harm at issue is a suicide\nor attempted suicide, the second, subjective component of an\nEighth Amendment claim requires a dual showing that the\ndefendant: (1) subjectively knew the prisoner was at substan-\ntial risk of committing suicide and (2) intentionally disre-\ngarded the risk.” Collins v. Seeman, 462 F.3d 757, 761 (7th Cir.\n2006). This requires “more than mere or gross negligence, but\nless than purposeful infliction of harm.” Matos v. O'Sullivan,\n335 F.3d 553, 557 (7th Cir. 2003).\n Proving actual subjective knowledge of the risk is often\ndifficult, see Petties, 836 F.3d at 728, but not here. Nurse South\nwas responsible for monitoring and evaluating Lisle while he\nwas on suicide watch. Lisle met his burden on this half of the\nsubjective prong. 3\n\n\n3 South argues that Lisle was never in any real danger because he was on\nsuicide watch. The argument is both speculative and irrelevant to the\nclaim that her statements were intended to cause him psychological pain.\n\f16 No. 18-1595\n\n Lisle also offered evidence to support the second compo-\nnent of this prong—that South intentionally disregarded the\nrisk of suicide. He need not offer evidence of purposeful in-\nfliction of harm. Here, Lisle alleges that South was deliber-\nately indifferent to his risk of suicide by taunting him for be-\ning unsuccessful and actually encouraging Lisle to kill him-\nself while he was in the infirmary on suicide watch. Assuming\nLisle’s account is true, as we must, South’s statements could\nbe deemed cruel infliction of mental pain and deliberate in-\ndifference to his risk of suicide, making summary judgment\nimproper.\n The district court granted summary judgment, quoting\nour statement that, “Standing alone, simple verbal harass-\nment does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment, de-\nprive a prisoner of a protected liberty interest or deny a pris-\noner equal protection of the laws.” DeWalt v. Carter, 224 F.3d\n\n\nThat alleged pain did not depend on Lisle’s ability to follow through on\nhis suicidal intent. See Edwards v. Snyder, 478 F.3d 827, 831 (7th Cir. 2007)\n(reversing dismissal; prisoner’s receipt of some medical care does not au-\ntomatically defeat claim of deliberate indifference; fact-finder could infer\nintentional mistreatment was likely to seriously aggravate a medical con-\ndition); see also Jordan v. Gardner, 986 F.2d 1521, 1526 (9th Cir. 1993) (find-\ning deliberate indifference to female inmate’s psychological vulnerabili-\nties when cross-gender searches exacerbated symptoms of “pre-existing\nmental conditions”). Also, unfortunately, there is no guarantee an inmate\nis safe from the risk of suicide while on suicide watch. Suicide-prevention\nmeasures reduce opportunities to commit suicide, but according to a 2010\nstudy conducted by the National Institute of Corrections, about 7.5% of\ninmates who committed suicide in 2005 and 2006 were on suicide watch.\nNational Institute of Corrections, U.S. Department of Justice, National\nStudy of Jail Suicide 20 Years Later, https://info.nicic.gov/nicrp/sys-\ntem/files/024308.pdf at page 27, April 2010.\n\fNo. 18-1595 17\n\n607, 612 (7th Cir. 2000) (officer allegedly used racially and sex-\nually derogatory language). Since DeWalt, however, we have\nsaid that its language was too broad, explaining: “The propo-\nsition that verbal harassment cannot amount to cruel and un-\nusual punishment is incorrect.” Beal v. Foster, 803 F.3d 356, 357\n(7th Cir. 2015).\n Our analysis in Hughes and Beal confirms that the “simple\nverbal harassment” language of DeWalt would not preclude a\nreasonable jury from finding deliberate indifference here. In\nHughes v. Scott, 816 F.3d 955 (7th Cir. 2016), we reversed dis-\nmissal of an inmate’s claim where he had been committed in-\nvoluntarily to a facility for individuals suffering from mental\ndisorders. The plaintiff alleged that the staff called him “igno-\nrant,” “stupid,” and a “moron.” Id. at 957. They also told him\nhis life would go better if he stopped filing grievances about\nhis treatment at the facility. We distinguished DeWalt and de-\ntermined that the alleged statements to Hughes went beyond\nsimple verbal harassment because of his vulnerability: “Just\nas police when interrogating children are held to understand\nthe mental and psychological differences between adults and\nchildrenYso staff of an institution that houses and treats per-\nsons suffering from mental disorders should be held to un-\nderstand that they are dealing with psychologically impaired\npersons.” Id. at 957 (internal citation omitted).\n In Beal v. Foster, a male inmate brought an Eighth Amend-\nment claim against a male officer who he claimed made sexual\ninnuendos about him in front of other inmates. 803 F.3d at\n358. The district court dismissed on the theory that the state-\nments were simple verbal harassment. We reversed. The\nguard’s statements and behavior could have been understood\nby other inmates as implying Beal was homosexual. Beal\n\f18 No. 18-1595\n\nfeared an increased risk of sexual assaults by other inmates,\nand could have inflicted “significant psychological harm on\nhim” in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Id. at 359.\n In support of this conclusion, Beal used hypotheticals to\nshow that verbal harassment can rise to a level that violates\nthe Eighth Amendment. For instance, it would be cruel and\nunusual for a correctional officer to tell an inmate with a se-\nvere headache that the doctor had told the officer the inmate\nactually had terminal brain cancer. Id. at 357. Or suppose a\nguard tells an inmate falsely that his family has been killed in\na car crash. Id. These classic examples would violate the\nEighth Amendment despite the lack of physical abuse. In\nother words, “the alleged pain [sufficient to constitute cruel\npunishment] may be physical or psychological.” Id. at 357–58,\nquoting Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012);\nsee also Jordan v. Gardner, 986 F.2d 1521, 1528 (9th Cir. 1993)\n(en banc) (affirming permanent injunction against cross-gen-\nder searches of female inmates; prison officials acted with de-\nliberate indifference to harm that cross-gender clothed body\nsearches were likely to cause female inmates who had been\nvictims of sexual abuse).\n With the understanding that the Eighth Amendment also\nprotects psychologically vulnerable inmates against psycho-\nlogical pain deliberately inflicted by correctional officers,\nNurse South’s alleged statements, if made, went beyond\n“simple verbal harassment.” She is alleged to have taunted\nand encouraged an inmate known to be suicidal and in the\nmidst of a mental health crisis to take his own life. As his\nnurse on suicide watch, she was uniquely situated to aggra-\nvate Lisle’s condition by using her specialized knowledge to\ntarget his psychological vulnerabilities, causing him\n\fNo. 18-1595 19\n\npsychological pain. Nurse South denies making these state-\nments, as noted, but the factual disagreement simply under-\nscores the issues of material fact to be decided at trial.\n We are not persuaded by Nurse South’s attempts to distin-\nguish Beal and Hughes. She points out that Beal involved sex-\nual harassment and fear of sexual attacks. Thus it was not\n“simple verbal harassment” because it involved the danger of\nexposing the inmate to sexual assault. We do not see a consti-\ntutionally relevant line between vulnerability to sexual at-\ntacks and vulnerability to suicide. In both situations, prison\nstaff would be exploiting a known vulnerability to create a\ndanger or harm that cannot have any legitimate penological\npurpose.\n South also points out that Hughes and Beal reversed dis-\nmissals on the pleadings rather than after summary judg-\nment. Such differences in procedural posture can be im-\nportant, but not for this question of law. See also Olson v.\nBloomberg, 339 F.3d 730, 737–38 (8th Cir. 2003) (affirming de-\nnial of summary judgment; reasonable jury could infer delib-\nerate indifference to risk of suicide where correctional officer\nsaid, “you do what you got to do,” when inmate said he\nwould hang himself).\n Finally, Nurse South points to the medical care she pro-\nvided to help Lisle while he was on suicide watch as evidence\nthat she was not deliberately indifferent to his risk of suicide.\nFor instance, she checked his vital signs regularly, performed\nneurological examinations, and requested an examination by\na mental health physician. This evidence may well be power-\nful at trial, but it is not conclusive as a matter of law on a mo-\ntion for summary judgment. Evidence of “some medical care\ndoes not automatically defeat a claim of deliberate\n\f20 No. 18-1595\n\nindifference if a fact finder could infer the treatment was ‘so\nblatantly inappropriate as to evidence intentional mistreat-\nment likely to seriously aggravate’ a medical condition.” Ed-\nwards v. Snyder, 478 F.3d 827, 831 (7th Cir. 2007), quoting\nSnipes v. DeTella, 95 F.3d 586, 592 (7th Cir. 1996). Encouraging\na suicidal inmate to kill himself, if that in fact happened,\nwould fit this description.\n We intend this holding to be narrow. Repugnant words,\nlike those alleged in DeWalt, will seldom rise to an Eighth\nAmendment violation. As we acknowledged in Beal, “most\nverbal harassment by jail or prison guards does not rise to the\nlevel of cruel and unusual punishment.” 803 F.3d at 358. Re-\nlationships between prisoners and prison staff are not always\nmarked by genteel language and good manners. The Eighth\nAmendment nevertheless can apply to an extreme case where\nmedical staff use an inmate’s known psychological vulnera-\nbility to cause psychological anguish.\n On remand the district court may need to consider what\nimpact, if any, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e) may have on these claims.\nSection 1997e(e) provides: “No Federal civil action may be\nbrought by a prisoner confined in a jail, prison, or other cor-\nrectional facility, for mental or emotional injury suffered\nwhile in custody without a prior showing of physical injury\nor the commission of a sexual act.” We have read this provi-\nsion to apply only to compensatory damages, not nominal or\npunitive damages involving no physical injury. Calhoun v. De-\nTella, 319 F.3d 936, 941 (7th Cir. 2003). We are not alone in in-\nterpreting § 1997e(e) this way. See Thompson v. Carter, 284 F.3d\n411, 418 (2d Cir. 2002) (punitive damages for Eighth Amend-\nment violations not barred); Oliver v. Keller, 289 F.3d 623, 630\n(9th Cir. 2002) (punitive damages for constitutional violation\n\fNo. 18-1595 21\n\nnot barred); Doe v. Delie, 257 F.3d 309, 314 (3d Cir. 2001)\n(“§ 1997e(e) does not bar claims seeking nominal damages to\nvindicate constitutional rights, nor claims seeking punitive\ndamages to deter or punish egregious violations of constitu-\ntional rights”); Searles v. Van Bebber, 251 F.3d 869, 881 (10th Cir.\n2001) (“salient fact is that Congress simply did not choose to\nprovide a restriction on punitive damages”).\n C. Equal Protection\n Lisle next claims Lieutenants Samuel and Brookman vio-\nlated his Fourteenth Amendment rights by placing him in\nsegregation but not his white cellmate. “Prisoners are pro-\ntected under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth\nAmendment from invidious discrimination based on race.”\nWolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974). Protection from\ndisparate treatment based upon race does not vanish merely\nbecause a person is incarcerated. Id. at 555.\n To avoid summary judgment on this claim, Lisle needed\nto come forward with evidence that would allow a reasonable\njury to infer that the defendants intentionally treated him dif-\nferently because of his race. In Ortiz v. Werner Enterprises, Inc.,\n834 F.3d 760 (7th Cir. 2016), our opinion explained that courts\ndeciding whether a defendant acted with a discriminatory\nmotive (in Ortiz, an employment decision) should avoid get-\nting entangled by formal methods and distinctions between\ndirect and circumstantial evidence. Instead, we explained, the\nstandard is whether all the evidence “would permit a reason-\nable factfinder to conclude that plaintiff’s race, ethnicity, sex,\nreligion, or other proscribed factor caused the discharge or\nother adverse employment action.” Id. at 765. The same rea-\nsoning and standard apply to a claim of intentional and un-\nconstitutional race discrimination by prison officials.\n\f22 No. 18-1595\n\n If the disciplinary decisions by Lieutenant Brookman (per-\nhaps aided by Lieutenant Samuel) were motivated by race,\nthat would violate the Equal Protection Clause. Brown v. Budz,\n398 F.3d 904, 916–17 (7th Cir. 2005); see also Harris v. Greer,\n750 F.2d 617, 618 (7th Cir. 1984) (“A policy of deliberate racial\nsegregation of prisoners would raise serious questions under\nthe equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”);\nWilliams v. Lane, 851 F.2d 867, 881–82 (7th Cir. 1988) (unequal\ntreatment of inmates without rational relation to legitimate\npenal interest violates Equal Protection).\n Lisle, however, has not presented evidence that would al-\nlow a jury to infer reasonably that Lieutenants Samuel or\nBrookman acted based on racial animus. Starting first with\nSamuel, nothing in the record could lead a reasonable jury to\ndetermine that he even had the authority to decide that Lisle\nwould be placed in disciplinary segregation and his cellmate\nwould not. The disciplinary charges for Lisle and his cellmate\nwere both signed by an officer who is not a party in this action.\nSamuel’s only involvement in Lisle’s segregation was that he\nescorted him there pending his disciplinary hearing.\n Lieutenant Brookman served as one of two members of the\nAdjustment Committee that oversaw Lisle’s disciplinary\nhearing. Lisle claims Brookman denied him the right to call a\nwitness during the disciplinary hearing because Lisle is black.\nLisle introduced no evidence, though, suggesting that Brook-\nman’s failure to call Samuel was based on race or that Brook-\nman permitted similarly situated white inmates to call wit-\nnesses while not allowing black inmates to do so. Undisputed\nevidence instead indicates the decision was based on the al-\nleged threats and abuse that the correctional officers appar-\nently found credible. In this instance, correctional officers\n\fNo. 18-1595 23\n\nbelieved the white inmate, not the black inmate. Without\nmore evidence of racial motive, the officers’ judgments about\nwhom to believe are not sufficient to allow a jury to infer racial\nbias. Lisle’s claim of race discrimination is supported only by\nspeculation and conjecture, which is not enough to survive\nsummary judgment. Boston v. U.S. Steel Corp., 816 F.3d 455,\n466 (7th Cir. 2016). We affirm the district court’s grant of sum-\nmary judgment on Lisle’s equal protection claims.\n D. Deprivation of Liberty Without Due Process\n Finally, the district court correctly granted summary judg-\nment on the due process claim against Lieutenant Brookman.\nWhen an inmate raises a due process claim for a disciplinary\nproceeding, he must demonstrate: (1) the deprivation of a lib-\nerty interest; and (2) the procedures he was afforded were\nconstitutionally deficient. Scruggs v. Jordan, 485 F.3d 934, 939\n(7th Cir. 2007). Lisle fails at the first step, so we do not address\nwhether the procedures were constitutionally deficient.\n Lisle’s claimed liberty interest was avoiding assignment to\na segregation cell. Avoiding segregation can constitute a pro-\ntected liberty interest, but the facts matter. Hardaway v. Mey-\nerhoff, 734 F.3d 740, 743 (7th Cir. 2013), citing Marion v. Colum-\nbia Correction Inst., 559 F.3d 693, 697 (7th Cir. 2009). This inter-\nest is triggered only when the confinement imposes “atypical\nand significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordi-\nnary incidents of prison life.” Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472,\n484 (1995). When considering whether disciplinary segrega-\ntion imposes atypical and significant hardships, we look to\nboth the duration of the segregation and the conditions en-\ndured. Marion, 559 F.3d at 697.\n\f24 No. 18-1595\n\n First, the duration of segregation was not an atypical or\nsignificant hardship. We have found that, depending on the\nconditions of confinement and whether there were any addi-\ntional punishments, a period of segregation considerably\nshorter than four months may satisfy this requirement. Kervin\nv. Barnes, 787 F.3d 833, 836 (7th Cir. 2015) (collecting cases).\nHowever, we have also found longer durations did not. Mar-\nion, 559 F.3d at 698 (six months of segregation is not such an\nextreme term as to trigger due process rights without more).\nA sentence of four months in segregation for the discovery of\ncontraband is not so atypical and significantly harsh that it\ncreates a liberty interest.\n Second, Lisle has not shown that the conditions of his con-\nfinement in segregation themselves imposed atypical and sig-\nnificant hardships. Lisle needed to show that the conditions\nof his confinement in his segregated cell deviated substan-\ntially from the ordinary conditions of prison life. Sandin, 515\nU.S. at 486 (inmates must demonstrate that punishment con-\nstituted dramatic departure from basic conditions of prison\nlife to present atypical and significant hardship such that it\nwould create liberty interest); Kervin, 787 F.3d at 836 (“the crit-\nical question is how far the treatment of the complaining in-\nmate deviates from [the] ordinary conditions” of a high-secu-\nrity prison and the conditions under which prisoner is actu-\nally held). In short, if the disciplinary measures do not “sub-\nstantially worsen the conditions of confinement” of an in-\nmate, then he has not been deprived of a protected liberty in-\nterest. Miller v. Dobier, 634 F.3d 412, 414–15 (7th Cir. 2011).\n We agree with the district court that Lisle did not offer ev-\nidence that would allow a reasonable jury to find the condi-\ntions of his segregation imposed atypical and significant\n\fNo. 18-1595 25\n\nhardships. The vague description of his cell, including rust on\nthe bars and “corroded feces” in the toilet, does not itself re-\nveal much. Regardless, a jury could not reasonably infer that\nthese conditions were unique to cells in the segregation unit\nor that these conditions caused Lisle any significant hardship.\nLisle is correct that we do not find conditions are typical and\nacceptable merely because they do not rise to the most ex-\ntreme conditions, but he needed to offer some evidence that\nwould allow a jury to determine that the conditions in segre-\ngation deviated substantially from ordinary conditions of his\nconfinement.\n Lisle further argues that placing an inmate in a cell that\nexacerbates his depression and suicidal urges without provid-\ning a crisis team implicates his liberty interest. We need not\ndecide whether this is correct because the record does not re-\nflect Lisle’s mental health crisis was exacerbated by the con-\nditions of his confinement. Instead, the record shows Lisle at-\ntributes his frustration with the disciplinary hearing and the\ngrievance process as the trigger for his worsening mental\nhealth.\n * * *\n To sum up, we REVERSE summary judgment for Nurse\nSouth on the Eighth Amendment claim based on her alleged\ntaunts. On the Batson claim, we VACATE the portions of the\njudgment based on the trial verdict and REMAND for addi-\ntional findings on the credibility of the defendants’ race-neu-\ntral explanations for their peremptory strikes of black pro-\nspective jurors, and for such further proceedings as are\nneeded consistent with this opinion, which may include a\n\f26 No. 18-1595\n\nnew trial on the claims that were tried. In all other respects\nthe judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 4\n\n\n\n\n4 Lisle’s deliberate indifference claim against the remaining defendants\nfor allegedly failing to address his grievances was not briefed on appeal\nand thus waived. United States v. Webster, 775 F.3d 897, 904 (7th Cir. 2015)\n(arguments not raised in party’s opening brief are waived); see also Ow-\nens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 953 (7th Cir. 2011) (mere mishandling of pris-\noner’s grievance does not support claim).\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Steven D. LISLE, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William WELBORN, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-08-01\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-1595\\nSTEVEN D. LISLE, JR.,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n v.\\n\\nWILLIAM WELBORN, et al.,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Southern District of Illinois.\\n No. 3:15-CV-00965 — Michael J. Reagan, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED MARCH 29, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 1, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before HAMILTON, BARRETT, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.\\n HAMILTON, Circuit Judge. This appeal presents issues stem-\\nming from a prison’s discipline of a prisoner and his later su-\\nicide attempts. The story began in 2014 when correctional of-\\nficers at the Menard Correctional Facility found contraband\\nalcohol in the cell of plaintiff Steven D. Lisle, Jr. Lisle’s cell-\\nmate at first took responsibility for the contraband but later\\nrecanted outside of Lisle’s presence. He said instead that Lisle\\nhad been abusing him and had forced him to take the blame\\n\\f2 No. 18-1595\\n\\nfor the alcohol. In disciplinary proceedings, Lisle later asked\\nto call a witness to testify about his cellmate’s initial admis-\\nsions. His requests were ignored. Lisle, who is black, was sen-\\ntenced to four months in disciplinary segregation. His cell-\\nmate, who was white, was not disciplined.\\n While in segregation, Lisle attempted to commit suicide\\nthree times. His third attempt was nearly successful, and he\\nwas placed on suicide watch in the prison infirmary. While\\nthere, Lisle claims, a nurse taunted him for his failed suicide\\nattempts and encouraged him to try again. Lisle filed this suit\\nalleging that he was punished based on his race, that he was\\ndeprived of liberty without due process of law, and that the\\nprison staff’s conduct in the wake of his mental health crisis—\\nincluding the nurse’s statements—amounted to cruel and un-\\nusual punishment.\\n The district court granted summary judgment on several\\nclaims but held a jury trial on Lisle’s claims for deliberate in-\\ndifference to a serious medical need. During jury selection,\\ndefense lawyers used peremptory strikes to remove three of\\nthe four black potential jurors. After the jury was selected, but\\nbefore it was sworn and the venire released, Lisle’s counsel\\nobjected pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986),\\nchallenging the use of peremptory strikes against the black\\njurors. The judge denied the objection as untimely.\\n Lisle appeals the summary judgment decision and seeks a\\nnew trial based on his Batson claim. We agree that his Batson\\nclaim was timely, and we cannot find that the erroneous de-\\nnial was harmless. We remand for an evidentiary hearing on\\nthe Batson claim and, if necessary, a new trial on all claims that\\nwere tried. We also reverse summary judgment for the nurse\\n\\fNo. 18-1595 3\\n\\non the taunting claim. We affirm all other aspects of the judg-\\nment.\\nI. Factual & Procedural Background\\n A. Cell Search & Disciplinary Proceeding\\n To the extent we review the partial grant of summary\\njudgment, we review the facts in the light most favorable to\\nLisle as the non-moving party, giving him the benefit of con-\\nflicts in the evidence. Spaine v. Community Contacts, Inc., 756\\nF.3d 542, 544 (7th Cir. 2014). Steven D. Lisle, Jr. was an inmate\\nat the Menard Correctional Center in Illinois, where he shared\\na cell with another inmate. On August 12, 2014, when Lisle\\nwas at the prison gym, correctional officers searched his cell\\nand found contraband: a trash bag of liquid that contained 7%\\nalcohol. Two correctional officers took Lisle to segregation to\\nawait a disciplinary hearing.\\n On the way to the segregation unit, he crossed paths with\\nhis cellmate, who had also been at the gym when the search\\noccurred. Lisle asked his cellmate if he was going to “take his\\nweight” (claim responsibility) for the contraband. The cell-\\nmate said yes and told Lisle that he had “already told them\\nwhatever they found” in the cell was his. Lieutenant Michael\\nSamuel was within earshot of this conversation. Lisle told\\nLieutenant Samuel that he was going to call him as a witness\\nat his disciplinary hearing. Samuel told Lisle he would testify.\\n Outside of Lisle’s presence, though, his cellmate later re-\\ncanted. He said he had claimed the alcohol was his only be-\\ncause Lisle had put him “through some serious hell.” The cell-\\nmate revealed extensive bruising all over his body that he\\nclaimed was the result of Lisle’s physical and sexual abuse.\\nHe expressed fear for his life. The cellmate was placed in\\n\\f4 No. 18-1595\\n\\nprotective custody and a rape kit was used to test him. He was\\nnever placed in segregation, and the Adjustment Committee\\nfound him not guilty for the contraband. Lieutenant Brook-\\nman testified in this case that Lisle was not informed of the\\nallegations his cellmate made because disclosing to an alleged\\nabuser that his victim has reported the abuse is “what gets\\npeople hurt in prison.”\\n Once Lisle was placed in segregation, a correctional officer\\nprovided him with a copy of the disciplinary report outlining\\nthe charged violations. Lisle asked for a pen so that he could\\nsign the report and ask to have Lieutenant Samuel testify at\\nthe disciplinary hearing. The officer refused, so Lisle made an\\noral request that Samuel be called to testify. The next day,\\nLisle met with his counselor and again made an oral request\\nto call Lieutenant Samuel as a witness. His counselor for-\\nwarded the request to Internal Affairs, which in turn faxed the\\nrequest to the Adjustment Committee.\\n Two days after the search, the disciplinary hearing was\\nheld before the Adjustment Committee comprised of Lieuten-\\nant Kent Brookman and another official whom Lisle has not\\nsued. Lieutenant Samuel did not attend the disciplinary hear-\\ning. Brookman indicated he had already spoken with Samuel\\nand would do so again. 1\\n The Adjustment Committee found Lisle guilty and sen-\\ntenced him to four months of disciplinary segregation and\\nfour months of reduced privileges, such as commissary re-\\nstrictions, and six months of contact visit restriction. Despite\\nLisle’s request that Samuel testify at least three times, the\\n\\n 1 It is not clear from the record whether Brookman actually spoke with\\n\\nSamuel or not. For purposes of summary judgment, we assume he did not.\\n\\fNo. 18-1595 5\\n\\nAdjustment Committee’s final report indicated that he had\\nnot requested a witness.\\n B. Lisle’s Mental Health Crisis\\n While in segregation, Lisle attempted to commit suicide\\nwith a makeshift rope three times over the course of three\\ndays. He claimed that being denied the chance to present a\\nwitness at his hearing and the slow response to the post-hear-\\ning grievances he filed caused him to become depressed. He\\nrepeatedly asked for a mental health and crisis team but did\\nnot receive intervening assistance before his third suicide at-\\ntempt.\\n Lisle described his segregation cell as being poorly venti-\\nlated, with rusty bars and with corroded feces in the toilet. He\\nwas not given a brush to clean the toilet, and he had access to\\nfewer cleaning supplies due to his loss of commissary privi-\\nleges. He also had fewer privileges than when he was in gen-\\neral population, such as loss of access to the gym and fewer\\nopportunities to go outside or shower. He had a cellmate\\nthroughout his entire stay in “segregation.”\\n Lisle described his first two suicide attempts in a deposi-\\ntion taken April 25, 2017. He said his first suicide attempt on\\nSeptember 3, 2014 failed when the makeshift rope he tied\\naround his neck snapped under his weight. Lisle alleges Lieu-\\ntenant Welborn and Nurse Reeves witnessed the attempt.\\nLisle claims he informed them he was attempting to kill him-\\nself and handed Reeves a suicide note. According to Lisle,\\nthey both walked away without a word.\\n The next day, Lisle again attempted suicide unsuccess-\\nfully, this time, he says, in the presence of correctional officer\\nChristopher McClure and another nurse, Jodi Hormann. Lisle\\n\\f6 No. 18-1595\\n\\nagain claims he handed the nurse a suicide note and told them\\nboth that he intended to kill himself. In a repeat of the day\\nbefore, Lisle says, the two prison staff members simply\\nwalked away. Before Lisle attempted suicide a third time, he\\ngave another officer, Cale Young, a third suicide note and in-\\nformed the officer that he was going to attempt suicide again.\\nAccording to Lisle, Young put the note in his pocket and\\nwalked away.\\n The night of September 5, 2014, Lisle attempted to commit\\nsuicide a third time while his cellmate was asleep. This time,\\na correctional officer and a medical staff member saw him\\nhanging in his cell and yelled for his cellmate to help. His cell-\\nmate helped the officers support Lisle by his legs to give the\\nofficers time to remove the rope from his neck. Lisle was taken\\nto the infirmary, where the medical staff noted he had injuries\\non his neck that appeared several days old, consistent with\\nprior suicide attempts. He remained in the infirmary and was\\nplaced on suicide watch.\\n On the instructions of the medical director, Lisle was\\nplaced on “strip cell suicide watch,” which meant he was not\\nprovided a mattress and could use only a suicide-resistant\\nblanket. He was also checked every ten minutes, with vital\\nsigns checked every two hours. Jana South was a nurse work-\\ning in the infirmary when Lisle was admitted. Lisle testified\\nthat when Nurse South evaluated him a few hours later, she\\nrepeatedly mocked him for failing to kill himself. She la-\\nmented that Lisle had not succeeded in his suicide attempts,\\ntold him he should have done it “properly,” and said he\\nshould “do a better job next time.” Later, Lisle also com-\\nplained that his back hurt from sleeping on the steel slab with-\\nout a mattress and requested a blanket because his cell was\\n\\fNo. 18-1595 7\\n\\ntoo cold. South taunted him, saying that if he wanted a mat-\\ntress, he should not be on suicide watch and that he should\\nnot care about being cold or uncomfortable since he was try-\\ning to kill himself. South denied making any of these state-\\nments.\\n Despite the dispute about what Nurse South said, it is un-\\ndisputed that she continued to provide care to Lisle. She eval-\\nuated him several times, took his vital signs, and conducted\\nat least one neurological examination. After her first evalua-\\ntion of Lisle, South also called a mental health physician to\\nevaluate Lisle, which occurred the next morning. Lisle re-\\nmained in the infirmary for six days.\\n C. Partial Summary Judgment and Trial\\n Lisle sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, bringing five counts\\nagainst fourteen prison staff members. First, he claimed Lieu-\\ntenant Brookman, as chair of the Adjustment Committee, de-\\nprived him of a protected liberty interest without due process\\nof law when he failed to call Lieutenant Samuel to testify.\\nLisle also alleged that Lieutenants Samuel and Brookman and\\nthe second officer who brought Lisle to segregation discrimi-\\nnated against him based on his race. Count III alleged an\\nEighth Amendment claim against Reeves, Welborn, Hor-\\nmann, McClure, Young, and South, for their failure to obtain\\nmedical help for Lisle when he was suicidal, and for Nurse\\nSouth’s verbal abuse of Lisle when he was on suicide watch.\\nHe also sued Nurse South based on his experiences in the in-\\nfirmary and her alleged refusal to call a doctor when he re-\\nquested one. Finally, he alleged that several prison officials\\nviolated his constitutional rights in their handling of multiple\\ngrievances he had filed.\\n\\f8 No. 18-1595\\n\\n The defendants moved for summary judgment. The dis-\\ntrict court granted the motion in part on the due process claim\\nbecause Lisle failed to show that confinement in segregation\\ndeprived him of a protected liberty interest. The district court\\nalso granted summary judgment for the equal protection de-\\nfendants, finding no evidence of racial motive in any defend-\\nant’s actions.\\n The district court dismissed the deliberate indifference\\nclaim against Nurse South for her conduct in the infirmary.\\nThe district court reasoned that under DeWalt v. Carter, 224\\nF.3d 607, 612 (7th Cir. 2000), the alleged taunting would be\\n“reprehensible,” but would amount only to “simple verbal\\nharassment,” which would not amount to cruel and unusual\\npunishment. The court explained: “though South may have\\nmade statements suggesting Plaintiff kill himself, she none-\\ntheless did her job and treated Plaintiff. Defendant South\\ntherefore did not exhibit deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s\\nrisk of suicide.” The court denied summary judgment on the\\nclaims of deliberate indifference against the prison staff mem-\\nbers for their alleged failure to act when Lisle was suicidal.\\n The court granted summary judgment dismissing most of\\nLisle’s conditions-of-confinement claims, but the court denied\\nsummary judgment on his claim that Nurse South refused to\\ncall a doctor. Finally, the court dismissed the claims against\\nvarious prison officials for their failure to act on the griev-\\nances he submitted because Lisle failed to provide sufficient\\nevidence to support these claims.\\n The surviving claims were tried to a jury. During voir dire,\\nonly four African-American veniremen were called. The two\\nteams of defense counsel used three of their six peremptory\\nstrikes against black panel members. Just after the jurors were\\n\\fNo. 18-1595 9\\n\\nselected, but before they were sworn and the venire released,\\nLisle’s attorney objected pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky, 476\\nU.S. 79 (1986), that those three strikes were racially motivated.\\nThe district court denied Lisle’s objection as untimely. The\\ncourt told Lisle he “should have made [the objections] while\\nwe were doing it. I think you waived at this juncture. We can\\nmake a record. I know we do have an African American on\\nthe jury.”\\n The court then addressed defense counsel, explaining that\\nif they wanted “to make a responseY I am happy to listen to\\nrace neutral responsesY. It is probably a good opportunity for\\nyou to respond if you have a race neutral response you want\\nto give or you don’t have to respond at all.” Counsel for the\\nmedical defendants briefly explained that they struck two\\nblack jurors who had close family members who had been in-\\ncarcerated. Counsel doubted those jurors’ abilities to be fair\\nto the defendants in this case, despite the jurors’ assertions\\nthat the family members’ experiences would not affect their\\ndecision. The judge said that the reasons proffered were race\\nneutral, but he did not make any express finding that he be-\\nlieved the offered reasons were honest.\\n After a three-day trial, a jury found for Lisle on the claim\\nthat Reeves, Welborn, Hormann, and McClure were deliber-\\nately indifferent to his suicide attempts, but the jury awarded\\nhim only $300 in compensatory damages. The jury found in\\nfavor of Nurse South on the claim that she denied Lisle a phy-\\nsician. The jury also found for Young on the claim of deliber-\\nate indifference to Lisle’s suicide attempt and for Hill on the\\nclaim that she was deliberately indifferent to a serious risk of\\nharm to Lisle by ignoring his grievances.\\n\\f10 No. 18-1595\\n\\n On appeal, Lisle argues that his Batson challenge was\\ntimely and that summary judgment for the defendants was\\nimproper on some claims: whether South’s comments vio-\\nlated the Eighth Amendment, whether Lieutenants Brookman\\nand Samuel violated the Equal Protection Clause, and\\nwhether Brookman deprived him of liberty without due pro-\\ncess when he refused to call Samuel as a witness.\\nII. Analysis\\n We begin with the district court’s ruling on the Batson chal-\\nlenge before analyzing its decisions to grant summary judg-\\nment on the Eighth Amendment, equal protection, and due\\nprocess claims.\\n A. Batson Challenge\\n In Batson v. Kentucky, the Supreme Court held that “the\\nState denies a black defendant equal protection of the laws\\nwhen it puts him on trial before a jury from which members\\nof his race have been purposefully excluded.” 476 U.S. 79, 85\\n(1986). Batson has been extended to civil cases, so peremptory\\nstrikes simply may not be used on account of race. Foster v.\\nChatman, 136 S. Ct. 1737, 1747 (2016) (“The ‘Constitution for-\\nbids striking even a single prospective juror for a discrimina-\\ntory purpose.’”), quoting Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472, 478\\n(2008); Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., 500 U.S. 614, 631\\n(1991) (Batson applies to civil cases).\\n A Batson claim is analyzed in a three-step process in the\\ntrial court. First, if a party suspects peremptory strikes are be-\\ning used for discriminatory reasons, he must object and make\\na prima facie case of racial discrimination. “[T]he burden at\\nthe prima facie stage is low, requiring only circumstances rais-\\ning a suspicion that discrimination occurred, even where\\n\\fNo. 18-1595 11\\n\\nthose circumstances are insufficient to indicate that it is more\\nlikely than not that the challenges were used to discriminate.”\\nUnited States v. Stephens, 421 F.3d 503, 512 (7th Cir. 2005). Sec-\\nond, if the court finds the party has made a prima facie show-\\ning of discrimination, the burden shifts to the striking party\\nto provide a race-neutral reason for the strike. Flowers v. Mis-\\nsissippi, 139 S. Ct. 2228, 2241 (2019). Third, the trial judge must\\nthen “determine whether the Y stated reasons were the actual\\nreasons or instead were a pretext for discrimination.” Id.\\n The district court rejected Lisle’s Batson challenge as un-\\ntimely. Trial judges have considerable flexibility and discre-\\ntion in managing jury selection, including how they provide\\na reasonable opportunity to raise Batson challenges. A reason-\\nable opportunity to raise a Batson challenge is essential. This\\nBatson challenge was not untimely. We have said that “[c]on-\\ntemporaneous objection is imperative with respect to Batson\\nclaims,” United States v. Chandler, 12 F.3d 1427, 1431 (7th Cir.\\n1994), but contemporaneous does not mean instantaneous.\\nRather, “the dismissal of the venire or the swearing of the jury\\nis the presumptive deadline for making Batson challenges.”\\nUnited States v. Williams, 819 F.3d 1026, 1029 (7th Cir. 2016).\\n Lisle’s Batson challenge was timely. He objected within\\nminutes after the third of four black potential jurors was\\nstruck. He objected before the jury was sworn and before the\\ndismissal of the venire. While Batson objections should be\\nraised as early as practicable, the purpose of these challenges\\nand our case law show that an objection to a discriminatory\\nstrike need not occur immediately after a particular strike is\\nmade. After all, “a ‘pattern’ of strikes against black jurors in-\\ncluded in the particular venire might give rise to an inference\\nof discrimination.” Flowers, 139 S. Ct. at 2246, quoting Batson,\\n\\f12 No. 18-1595\\n\\n476 U.S. at 97. The objecting party might not even be aware of\\na violation until several strikes have been made, or even until\\nall peremptory strikes have been exercised by all parties. The\\ntrial judge erred in deeming Lisle’s Batson challenge untimely.\\n We also cannot deem harmless here the erroneous denial\\nof the Batson challenge as untimely. First, a racially motivated\\nstrike of a single juror is forbidden and requires a new trial.\\nFoster, 136 S. Ct. at 1747, quoting Snyder, 552 U.S. at 478. In\\naddition, the trial judge’s sensible effort to “make a record” at\\nthe time fell one critical step short. The judge invited defense\\ncounsel to state for the record race-neutral reasons for their\\nstrikes of the black jurors. They did so, and the judge said they\\nwere indeed race-neutral reasons. The problem is that the\\njudge never took the final step of making a finding on the spot\\nabout the credibility of those reasons. See, e.g., Snyder, 552\\nU.S. at 479 (reversing denial of Batson challenge where trial\\njudge had never made finding on juror’s demeanor or credi-\\nbility of proffered race-neutral reason for strike). And unfor-\\ntunately, counsel did not ask the judge for that one further\\nfinding. While we can glean some information from this rec-\\nord, we have no way to know whether the attorneys were\\ncredible. For example, the record does not show whether sim-\\nilarly situated white jurors were struck for similar reasons,\\nnor did the judge say anything about anyone’s demeanor. 2\\n Because the district court did not make a credibility find-\\ning here, we must remand for further findings and,\\n\\n 2\\n We asked at oral argument whether any peremptory strikes were\\nused on white jurors for similar reasons. Counsel for defendants re-\\nsponded that Juror 9 was white and was also struck because he had a close\\nfamily member who had been incarcerated. The district court, however,\\nnoted on the record that Juror 9 was black. Supp. App. 340.\\n\\fNo. 18-1595 13\\n\\ndepending on the findings, a new trial. Morgan v. City of Chi-\\ncago, 822 F.3d 317, 331 (7th Cir. 2016); United States v. Rutledge,\\n648 F.3d 555, 560 (7th Cir. 2011) (“when we confront an evi-\\ndentiary gap at step three, the ultimate Batson issue cannot be\\nresolved without a remand”). If the district court cannot make\\nthe necessary findings (perhaps because of delay or the vet-\\neran trial judge’s retirement), or if the court ultimately finds\\nthat the stated reasons were not credible, then the case must\\nbe retried. See Rutledge, 648 F.3d at 562 (conviction must be\\nvacated “if the passage of time precludes the district court\\nfrom making such findings, or if it finds that the prosecutor’s\\nreasons are not credible”); United States v. McMath, 559 F.3d\\n657, 666 (7th Cir. 2009) (remand for findings rather than retry-\\ning the case was appropriate remedy in light of court’s failure\\nto make findings on race-neutral reasons when only a year\\nhad passed); see also SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Abbott Labs.,\\n740 F.3d 471, 489 (9th Cir. 2014) (remanding for a new trial\\nafter Batson violation in civil case).\\n B. Cruel and Unusual Punishment Claim Against Nurse South\\n The district court granted summary judgment for Nurse\\nSouth on the ground that simple verbal harassment cannot\\nconstitute cruel and unusual punishment. For purposes of\\nsummary judgment, we must assume South did make the\\nstatements as Lisle claimed, encouraging Lisle to kill himself\\nwhile he was on suicide watch under her care.\\n Summary judgment is appropriate only when the movant\\nshows there is no genuine dispute as to any material facts and\\nis entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Horton v. Pobjecky,\\n883 F.3d 941, 948 (7th Cir. 2018); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). We re-\\nview de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment,\\nconsidering the facts in a light favorable to Lisle and drawing\\n\\f14 No. 18-1595\\n\\nall reasonable inferences in his favor. Horton, 883 F.3d at 948.\\nAt this stage, we may not assess the credibility of the wit-\\nnesses or balance the weight of conflicting evidence. Palmer v.\\nFranz, 928 F.3d 560, 565 (7th Cir. 2019) (reversing summary\\njudgment).\\n The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual pun-\\nishments that involve the unnecessary and wanton infliction\\nof pain. Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 346 (1981). The pro-\\nhibition also includes acts “totally without penological justifi-\\ncation.” Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 737 (2002), quoting Rhodes,\\n452 U.S. at 346. This prohibition reaches wanton infliction of\\npain and deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs\\nof prisoners. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976); Petties v.\\nCarter, 836 F.3d 722, 727–28 (7th Cir. 2016) (en banc).\\n Lisle’s claim against Nurse South lies at the intersection of\\ndeliberate and pointless infliction of psychological injury and\\ndeliberate indifference in medical care. In ordinary medical\\ncare cases under the Eighth Amendment, “we perform a two-\\nstep analysis, first examining whether a plaintiff suffered\\nfrom an objectively serious medical condition, and then deter-\\nmining whether the individual defendant was deliberately in-\\ndifferent to that condition.” Petties, 836 F.3d at 727–28, citing\\nFarmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). In applying this\\ntest, “we look at the totality of an inmate’s medical care when\\nconsidering whether that care evidences deliberate indiffer-\\nence to serious medical needs.” Petties, 836 F.3d at 728–29.\\n At the first step, the risk of suicide is an objectively serious\\nmedical condition, and it is well established that inmates have\\nthe right to be free from deliberate indifference to this risk\\nwhile in custody. See Estate of Clark v. Walker, 865 F.3d 544, 551\\n(7th Cir. 2017) (inmate’s “right to be free from deliberate\\n\\fNo. 18-1595 15\\n\\nindifference to his risk of suicide while he was in custody was\\nclearly established at the time of his death in 2012”); Woodward\\nv. Correctional Medical Servs. of Illinois, Inc., 368 F.3d 917, 926–\\n27, 929 (7th Cir. 2004) (jail managers would be guilty of delib-\\nerate indifference if they took no precautions against the pos-\\nsibility of an inmate’s suicide); Cavalieri v. Shepard, 321 F.3d\\n616, 623 (7th Cir. 2003) (“no doubt” the right of an inmate to\\nbe free from deliberate indifference to his risk of suicide was\\nclearly established in 1998); Hall v. Ryan, 957 F.2d 402, 404–05\\n(7th Cir. 1992) (“It was clearly established in 1986 that police\\nofficers could not be deliberately indifferent to a detainee who\\nis in need of medical attention because of a mental illness or\\nwho is a substantial suicide risk.”).\\n At the second step, “[w]here the harm at issue is a suicide\\nor attempted suicide, the second, subjective component of an\\nEighth Amendment claim requires a dual showing that the\\ndefendant: (1) subjectively knew the prisoner was at substan-\\ntial risk of committing suicide and (2) intentionally disre-\\ngarded the risk.” Collins v. Seeman, 462 F.3d 757, 761 (7th Cir.\\n2006). This requires “more than mere or gross negligence, but\\nless than purposeful infliction of harm.” Matos v. O'Sullivan,\\n335 F.3d 553, 557 (7th Cir. 2003).\\n Proving actual subjective knowledge of the risk is often\\ndifficult, see Petties, 836 F.3d at 728, but not here. Nurse South\\nwas responsible for monitoring and evaluating Lisle while he\\nwas on suicide watch. Lisle met his burden on this half of the\\nsubjective prong. 3\\n\\n\\n3 South argues that Lisle was never in any real danger because he was on\\nsuicide watch. The argument is both speculative and irrelevant to the\\nclaim that her statements were intended to cause him psychological pain.\\n\\f16 No. 18-1595\\n\\n Lisle also offered evidence to support the second compo-\\nnent of this prong—that South intentionally disregarded the\\nrisk of suicide. He need not offer evidence of purposeful in-\\nfliction of harm. Here, Lisle alleges that South was deliber-\\nately indifferent to his risk of suicide by taunting him for be-\\ning unsuccessful and actually encouraging Lisle to kill him-\\nself while he was in the infirmary on suicide watch. Assuming\\nLisle’s account is true, as we must, South’s statements could\\nbe deemed cruel infliction of mental pain and deliberate in-\\ndifference to his risk of suicide, making summary judgment\\nimproper.\\n The district court granted summary judgment, quoting\\nour statement that, “Standing alone, simple verbal harass-\\nment does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment, de-\\nprive a prisoner of a protected liberty interest or deny a pris-\\noner equal protection of the laws.” DeWalt v. Carter, 224 F.3d\\n\\n\\nThat alleged pain did not depend on Lisle’s ability to follow through on\\nhis suicidal intent. See Edwards v. Snyder, 478 F.3d 827, 831 (7th Cir. 2007)\\n(reversing dismissal; prisoner’s receipt of some medical care does not au-\\ntomatically defeat claim of deliberate indifference; fact-finder could infer\\nintentional mistreatment was likely to seriously aggravate a medical con-\\ndition); see also Jordan v. Gardner, 986 F.2d 1521, 1526 (9th Cir. 1993) (find-\\ning deliberate indifference to female inmate’s psychological vulnerabili-\\nties when cross-gender searches exacerbated symptoms of “pre-existing\\nmental conditions”). Also, unfortunately, there is no guarantee an inmate\\nis safe from the risk of suicide while on suicide watch. Suicide-prevention\\nmeasures reduce opportunities to commit suicide, but according to a 2010\\nstudy conducted by the National Institute of Corrections, about 7.5% of\\ninmates who committed suicide in 2005 and 2006 were on suicide watch.\\nNational Institute of Corrections, U.S. Department of Justice, National\\nStudy of Jail Suicide 20 Years Later, https://info.nicic.gov/nicrp/sys-\\ntem/files/024308.pdf at page 27, April 2010.\\n\\fNo. 18-1595 17\\n\\n607, 612 (7th Cir. 2000) (officer allegedly used racially and sex-\\nually derogatory language). Since DeWalt, however, we have\\nsaid that its language was too broad, explaining: “The propo-\\nsition that verbal harassment cannot amount to cruel and un-\\nusual punishment is incorrect.” Beal v. Foster, 803 F.3d 356, 357\\n(7th Cir. 2015).\\n Our analysis in Hughes and Beal confirms that the “simple\\nverbal harassment” language of DeWalt would not preclude a\\nreasonable jury from finding deliberate indifference here. In\\nHughes v. Scott, 816 F.3d 955 (7th Cir. 2016), we reversed dis-\\nmissal of an inmate’s claim where he had been committed in-\\nvoluntarily to a facility for individuals suffering from mental\\ndisorders. The plaintiff alleged that the staff called him “igno-\\nrant,” “stupid,” and a “moron.” Id. at 957. They also told him\\nhis life would go better if he stopped filing grievances about\\nhis treatment at the facility. We distinguished DeWalt and de-\\ntermined that the alleged statements to Hughes went beyond\\nsimple verbal harassment because of his vulnerability: “Just\\nas police when interrogating children are held to understand\\nthe mental and psychological differences between adults and\\nchildrenYso staff of an institution that houses and treats per-\\nsons suffering from mental disorders should be held to un-\\nderstand that they are dealing with psychologically impaired\\npersons.” Id. at 957 (internal citation omitted).\\n In Beal v. Foster, a male inmate brought an Eighth Amend-\\nment claim against a male officer who he claimed made sexual\\ninnuendos about him in front of other inmates. 803 F.3d at\\n358. The district court dismissed on the theory that the state-\\nments were simple verbal harassment. We reversed. The\\nguard’s statements and behavior could have been understood\\nby other inmates as implying Beal was homosexual. Beal\\n\\f18 No. 18-1595\\n\\nfeared an increased risk of sexual assaults by other inmates,\\nand could have inflicted “significant psychological harm on\\nhim” in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Id. at 359.\\n In support of this conclusion, Beal used hypotheticals to\\nshow that verbal harassment can rise to a level that violates\\nthe Eighth Amendment. For instance, it would be cruel and\\nunusual for a correctional officer to tell an inmate with a se-\\nvere headache that the doctor had told the officer the inmate\\nactually had terminal brain cancer. Id. at 357. Or suppose a\\nguard tells an inmate falsely that his family has been killed in\\na car crash. Id. These classic examples would violate the\\nEighth Amendment despite the lack of physical abuse. In\\nother words, “the alleged pain [sufficient to constitute cruel\\npunishment] may be physical or psychological.” Id. at 357–58,\\nquoting Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012);\\nsee also Jordan v. Gardner, 986 F.2d 1521, 1528 (9th Cir. 1993)\\n(en banc) (affirming permanent injunction against cross-gen-\\nder searches of female inmates; prison officials acted with de-\\nliberate indifference to harm that cross-gender clothed body\\nsearches were likely to cause female inmates who had been\\nvictims of sexual abuse).\\n With the understanding that the Eighth Amendment also\\nprotects psychologically vulnerable inmates against psycho-\\nlogical pain deliberately inflicted by correctional officers,\\nNurse South’s alleged statements, if made, went beyond\\n“simple verbal harassment.” She is alleged to have taunted\\nand encouraged an inmate known to be suicidal and in the\\nmidst of a mental health crisis to take his own life. As his\\nnurse on suicide watch, she was uniquely situated to aggra-\\nvate Lisle’s condition by using her specialized knowledge to\\ntarget his psychological vulnerabilities, causing him\\n\\fNo. 18-1595 19\\n\\npsychological pain. Nurse South denies making these state-\\nments, as noted, but the factual disagreement simply under-\\nscores the issues of material fact to be decided at trial.\\n We are not persuaded by Nurse South’s attempts to distin-\\nguish Beal and Hughes. She points out that Beal involved sex-\\nual harassment and fear of sexual attacks. Thus it was not\\n“simple verbal harassment” because it involved the danger of\\nexposing the inmate to sexual assault. We do not see a consti-\\ntutionally relevant line between vulnerability to sexual at-\\ntacks and vulnerability to suicide. In both situations, prison\\nstaff would be exploiting a known vulnerability to create a\\ndanger or harm that cannot have any legitimate penological\\npurpose.\\n South also points out that Hughes and Beal reversed dis-\\nmissals on the pleadings rather than after summary judg-\\nment. Such differences in procedural posture can be im-\\nportant, but not for this question of law. See also Olson v.\\nBloomberg, 339 F.3d 730, 737–38 (8th Cir. 2003) (affirming de-\\nnial of summary judgment; reasonable jury could infer delib-\\nerate indifference to risk of suicide where correctional officer\\nsaid, “you do what you got to do,” when inmate said he\\nwould hang himself).\\n Finally, Nurse South points to the medical care she pro-\\nvided to help Lisle while he was on suicide watch as evidence\\nthat she was not deliberately indifferent to his risk of suicide.\\nFor instance, she checked his vital signs regularly, performed\\nneurological examinations, and requested an examination by\\na mental health physician. This evidence may well be power-\\nful at trial, but it is not conclusive as a matter of law on a mo-\\ntion for summary judgment. Evidence of “some medical care\\ndoes not automatically defeat a claim of deliberate\\n\\f20 No. 18-1595\\n\\nindifference if a fact finder could infer the treatment was ‘so\\nblatantly inappropriate as to evidence intentional mistreat-\\nment likely to seriously aggravate’ a medical condition.” Ed-\\nwards v. Snyder, 478 F.3d 827, 831 (7th Cir. 2007), quoting\\nSnipes v. DeTella, 95 F.3d 586, 592 (7th Cir. 1996). Encouraging\\na suicidal inmate to kill himself, if that in fact happened,\\nwould fit this description.\\n We intend this holding to be narrow. Repugnant words,\\nlike those alleged in DeWalt, will seldom rise to an Eighth\\nAmendment violation. As we acknowledged in Beal, “most\\nverbal harassment by jail or prison guards does not rise to the\\nlevel of cruel and unusual punishment.” 803 F.3d at 358. Re-\\nlationships between prisoners and prison staff are not always\\nmarked by genteel language and good manners. The Eighth\\nAmendment nevertheless can apply to an extreme case where\\nmedical staff use an inmate’s known psychological vulnera-\\nbility to cause psychological anguish.\\n On remand the district court may need to consider what\\nimpact, if any, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e) may have on these claims.\\nSection 1997e(e) provides: “No Federal civil action may be\\nbrought by a prisoner confined in a jail, prison, or other cor-\\nrectional facility, for mental or emotional injury suffered\\nwhile in custody without a prior showing of physical injury\\nor the commission of a sexual act.” We have read this provi-\\nsion to apply only to compensatory damages, not nominal or\\npunitive damages involving no physical injury. Calhoun v. De-\\nTella, 319 F.3d 936, 941 (7th Cir. 2003). We are not alone in in-\\nterpreting § 1997e(e) this way. See Thompson v. Carter, 284 F.3d\\n411, 418 (2d Cir. 2002) (punitive damages for Eighth Amend-\\nment violations not barred); Oliver v. Keller, 289 F.3d 623, 630\\n(9th Cir. 2002) (punitive damages for constitutional violation\\n\\fNo. 18-1595 21\\n\\nnot barred); Doe v. Delie, 257 F.3d 309, 314 (3d Cir. 2001)\\n(“§ 1997e(e) does not bar claims seeking nominal damages to\\nvindicate constitutional rights, nor claims seeking punitive\\ndamages to deter or punish egregious violations of constitu-\\ntional rights”); Searles v. Van Bebber, 251 F.3d 869, 881 (10th Cir.\\n2001) (“salient fact is that Congress simply did not choose to\\nprovide a restriction on punitive damages”).\\n C. Equal Protection\\n Lisle next claims Lieutenants Samuel and Brookman vio-\\nlated his Fourteenth Amendment rights by placing him in\\nsegregation but not his white cellmate. “Prisoners are pro-\\ntected under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth\\nAmendment from invidious discrimination based on race.”\\nWolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974). Protection from\\ndisparate treatment based upon race does not vanish merely\\nbecause a person is incarcerated. Id. at 555.\\n To avoid summary judgment on this claim, Lisle needed\\nto come forward with evidence that would allow a reasonable\\njury to infer that the defendants intentionally treated him dif-\\nferently because of his race. In Ortiz v. Werner Enterprises, Inc.,\\n834 F.3d 760 (7th Cir. 2016), our opinion explained that courts\\ndeciding whether a defendant acted with a discriminatory\\nmotive (in Ortiz, an employment decision) should avoid get-\\nting entangled by formal methods and distinctions between\\ndirect and circumstantial evidence. Instead, we explained, the\\nstandard is whether all the evidence “would permit a reason-\\nable factfinder to conclude that plaintiff’s race, ethnicity, sex,\\nreligion, or other proscribed factor caused the discharge or\\nother adverse employment action.” Id. at 765. The same rea-\\nsoning and standard apply to a claim of intentional and un-\\nconstitutional race discrimination by prison officials.\\n\\f22 No. 18-1595\\n\\n If the disciplinary decisions by Lieutenant Brookman (per-\\nhaps aided by Lieutenant Samuel) were motivated by race,\\nthat would violate the Equal Protection Clause. Brown v. Budz,\\n398 F.3d 904, 916–17 (7th Cir. 2005); see also Harris v. Greer,\\n750 F.2d 617, 618 (7th Cir. 1984) (“A policy of deliberate racial\\nsegregation of prisoners would raise serious questions under\\nthe equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”);\\nWilliams v. Lane, 851 F.2d 867, 881–82 (7th Cir. 1988) (unequal\\ntreatment of inmates without rational relation to legitimate\\npenal interest violates Equal Protection).\\n Lisle, however, has not presented evidence that would al-\\nlow a jury to infer reasonably that Lieutenants Samuel or\\nBrookman acted based on racial animus. Starting first with\\nSamuel, nothing in the record could lead a reasonable jury to\\ndetermine that he even had the authority to decide that Lisle\\nwould be placed in disciplinary segregation and his cellmate\\nwould not. The disciplinary charges for Lisle and his cellmate\\nwere both signed by an officer who is not a party in this action.\\nSamuel’s only involvement in Lisle’s segregation was that he\\nescorted him there pending his disciplinary hearing.\\n Lieutenant Brookman served as one of two members of the\\nAdjustment Committee that oversaw Lisle’s disciplinary\\nhearing. Lisle claims Brookman denied him the right to call a\\nwitness during the disciplinary hearing because Lisle is black.\\nLisle introduced no evidence, though, suggesting that Brook-\\nman’s failure to call Samuel was based on race or that Brook-\\nman permitted similarly situated white inmates to call wit-\\nnesses while not allowing black inmates to do so. Undisputed\\nevidence instead indicates the decision was based on the al-\\nleged threats and abuse that the correctional officers appar-\\nently found credible. In this instance, correctional officers\\n\\fNo. 18-1595 23\\n\\nbelieved the white inmate, not the black inmate. Without\\nmore evidence of racial motive, the officers’ judgments about\\nwhom to believe are not sufficient to allow a jury to infer racial\\nbias. Lisle’s claim of race discrimination is supported only by\\nspeculation and conjecture, which is not enough to survive\\nsummary judgment. Boston v. U.S. Steel Corp., 816 F.3d 455,\\n466 (7th Cir. 2016). We affirm the district court’s grant of sum-\\nmary judgment on Lisle’s equal protection claims.\\n D. Deprivation of Liberty Without Due Process\\n Finally, the district court correctly granted summary judg-\\nment on the due process claim against Lieutenant Brookman.\\nWhen an inmate raises a due process claim for a disciplinary\\nproceeding, he must demonstrate: (1) the deprivation of a lib-\\nerty interest; and (2) the procedures he was afforded were\\nconstitutionally deficient. Scruggs v. Jordan, 485 F.3d 934, 939\\n(7th Cir. 2007). Lisle fails at the first step, so we do not address\\nwhether the procedures were constitutionally deficient.\\n Lisle’s claimed liberty interest was avoiding assignment to\\na segregation cell. Avoiding segregation can constitute a pro-\\ntected liberty interest, but the facts matter. Hardaway v. Mey-\\nerhoff, 734 F.3d 740, 743 (7th Cir. 2013), citing Marion v. Colum-\\nbia Correction Inst., 559 F.3d 693, 697 (7th Cir. 2009). This inter-\\nest is triggered only when the confinement imposes “atypical\\nand significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordi-\\nnary incidents of prison life.” Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472,\\n484 (1995). When considering whether disciplinary segrega-\\ntion imposes atypical and significant hardships, we look to\\nboth the duration of the segregation and the conditions en-\\ndured. Marion, 559 F.3d at 697.\\n\\f24 No. 18-1595\\n\\n First, the duration of segregation was not an atypical or\\nsignificant hardship. We have found that, depending on the\\nconditions of confinement and whether there were any addi-\\ntional punishments, a period of segregation considerably\\nshorter than four months may satisfy this requirement. Kervin\\nv. Barnes, 787 F.3d 833, 836 (7th Cir. 2015) (collecting cases).\\nHowever, we have also found longer durations did not. Mar-\\nion, 559 F.3d at 698 (six months of segregation is not such an\\nextreme term as to trigger due process rights without more).\\nA sentence of four months in segregation for the discovery of\\ncontraband is not so atypical and significantly harsh that it\\ncreates a liberty interest.\\n Second, Lisle has not shown that the conditions of his con-\\nfinement in segregation themselves imposed atypical and sig-\\nnificant hardships. Lisle needed to show that the conditions\\nof his confinement in his segregated cell deviated substan-\\ntially from the ordinary conditions of prison life. Sandin, 515\\nU.S. at 486 (inmates must demonstrate that punishment con-\\nstituted dramatic departure from basic conditions of prison\\nlife to present atypical and significant hardship such that it\\nwould create liberty interest); Kervin, 787 F.3d at 836 (“the crit-\\nical question is how far the treatment of the complaining in-\\nmate deviates from [the] ordinary conditions” of a high-secu-\\nrity prison and the conditions under which prisoner is actu-\\nally held). In short, if the disciplinary measures do not “sub-\\nstantially worsen the conditions of confinement” of an in-\\nmate, then he has not been deprived of a protected liberty in-\\nterest. Miller v. Dobier, 634 F.3d 412, 414–15 (7th Cir. 2011).\\n We agree with the district court that Lisle did not offer ev-\\nidence that would allow a reasonable jury to find the condi-\\ntions of his segregation imposed atypical and significant\\n\\fNo. 18-1595 25\\n\\nhardships. The vague description of his cell, including rust on\\nthe bars and “corroded feces” in the toilet, does not itself re-\\nveal much. Regardless, a jury could not reasonably infer that\\nthese conditions were unique to cells in the segregation unit\\nor that these conditions caused Lisle any significant hardship.\\nLisle is correct that we do not find conditions are typical and\\nacceptable merely because they do not rise to the most ex-\\ntreme conditions, but he needed to offer some evidence that\\nwould allow a jury to determine that the conditions in segre-\\ngation deviated substantially from ordinary conditions of his\\nconfinement.\\n Lisle further argues that placing an inmate in a cell that\\nexacerbates his depression and suicidal urges without provid-\\ning a crisis team implicates his liberty interest. We need not\\ndecide whether this is correct because the record does not re-\\nflect Lisle’s mental health crisis was exacerbated by the con-\\nditions of his confinement. Instead, the record shows Lisle at-\\ntributes his frustration with the disciplinary hearing and the\\ngrievance process as the trigger for his worsening mental\\nhealth.\\n * * *\\n To sum up, we REVERSE summary judgment for Nurse\\nSouth on the Eighth Amendment claim based on her alleged\\ntaunts. On the Batson claim, we VACATE the portions of the\\njudgment based on the trial verdict and REMAND for addi-\\ntional findings on the credibility of the defendants’ race-neu-\\ntral explanations for their peremptory strikes of black pro-\\nspective jurors, and for such further proceedings as are\\nneeded consistent with this opinion, which may include a\\n\\f26 No. 18-1595\\n\\nnew trial on the claims that were tried. In all other respects\\nthe judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 4\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n4 Lisle’s deliberate indifference claim against the remaining defendants\\nfor allegedly failing to address his grievances was not briefed on appeal\\nand thus waived. United States v. Webster, 775 F.3d 897, 904 (7th Cir. 2015)\\n(arguments not raised in party’s opening brief are waived); see also Ow-\\nens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 953 (7th Cir. 2011) (mere mishandling of pris-\\noner’s grievance does not support claim).\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3770,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4645048,"string":"4,645,048"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"Jeffrey D. LEISER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Karen KLOTH, Correctional Sergeant, Et Al., Defendants-Appellants."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Jeffrey Leiser v. Karen Kloth"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-08-01"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"17-3378"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Easterbrook, Hamilton, Scudder\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"David Frank Hamilton\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 17-3378\\nJEFFREY D. LEISER,\\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\\n v.\\n\\nKAREN KLOTH, Correctional Sergeant, et al.,\\n Defendants-Appellants.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Western District of Wisconsin.\\n No. 3:15-cv-00768-slc — Stephen L. Crocker, Magistrate Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED SEPTEMBER 5, 2018 — DECIDED AUGUST 1, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before EASTERBROOK, HAMILTON, and SCUDDER, Circuit\\nJudges.\\n HAMILTON, Circuit Judge. Jeffrey Leiser was an inmate at\\nthe Wisconsin Stanley Correctional Institution where Ser-\\ngeant Karen Kloth was employed. Leiser, who was later diag-\\nnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder while at Stanley,\\nalleged that beginning in 2013 he self-reported his disorder to\\nKloth and “informed” her not to stand directly behind him\\nbecause doing so triggered his mental health symptoms. He\\n\\f2 No. 17-3378\\n\\nclaims Kloth did not comply with his request but instead in-\\ncreased the amount of time she stood behind him while pa-\\ntrolling common areas. Leiser filed this suit against Kloth, her\\nsupervisor, and the warden, claiming that Kloth’s behavior\\nviolated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel\\nand unusual punishment. The district court denied the de-\\nfendants’ motion for summary judgment after determining\\nthey were not entitled to qualified immunity because Leiser\\nhad a well-established right to be free from intentionally in-\\nflicted psychological harm. The defendants filed this interloc-\\nutory appeal, asking us to resolve the legal question of\\nwhether they were, in fact, entitled to qualified immunity. We\\nreverse. Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. At the\\nrelevant times, it did not violate clearly established constitu-\\ntional law for non-medical correctional staff to refuse to pro-\\nvide a prisoner with what amounts to a medical accommoda-\\ntion that had not been ordered by medical staff and the need\\nfor which was not obvious to a layperson.\\nI. Facts\\n We construe the evidence in the light most favorable to\\nLeiser as the non-moving party. See Lovett v. Herbert, 907 F.3d\\n986, 990 (7th Cir. 2018). At all times relevant, Jeffrey Leiser was\\nan inmate in the custody of the Wisconsin Department of Cor-\\nrections, housed at the Stanley Correctional Institution. Ser-\\ngeant Karen Kloth was a correctional officer who worked in\\nLeiser’s unit. Kloth reported to Unit Manager Paula Stoudt\\nand in turn to Warden Reed Richardson.\\n Leiser was housed in Stanley’s mental health unit. He\\nstruggled with numerous mental health issues, including at\\ntimes suicidal tendencies. Especially relevant to this case, the\\npsychological services staff eventually diagnosed Leiser with\\n\\fNo. 17-3378 3\\n\\nPost Traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”) stemming from a\\nsexual attack he suffered as a child. Leiser alleges that because\\nof this attack, when someone stands directly behind him, he\\nexperiences flashbacks and may become angry, knock his\\nhead against a wall, break out in a sweat, yell, scream, and\\nwant to hurt whoever triggered the episode. Leiser told staff\\nin the Psychological Services Unit he was experiencing PTSD\\nsymptoms as early as October 2014, but he was not diagnosed\\nwith the disorder until some time in the spring of 2015.\\n While at Stanley, Leiser met regularly with staff from the\\nPsychological Services Unit. On March 30, 2015, he told his\\ntreating clinician that he could not tolerate people standing\\ndirectly behind him and that his anxiety spiked when he was\\nwaiting in line for medications in the Health Services Unit.\\nHis psychiatrist then arranged for him to receive his medica-\\ntions directly from nursing staff, rather than after waiting in\\nline, to avoid this discomfort. Leiser did not receive any other\\naccommodation for his PTSD from the psychological staff.\\nStanley’s Psychological Services Unit does not inform correc-\\ntional officers of an inmate’s clinical diagnosis if no accommo-\\ndation is required.\\n At some point in 2013, well before his diagnosis, Leiser no-\\nticed that Sergeant Karen Kloth began standing behind him in\\ncommon areas, close enough, he says, to trigger his PTSD.\\nLeiser told Kloth that he suffered from PTSD and that he\\ncould not tolerate anyone standing so close behind him. Kloth\\nresponded by telling Leiser he would just have to “deal with\\nit” because she could stand where she wanted.\\n After this exchange, Leiser claims, Kloth increased the\\namount of time she stood directly behind him. Leiser submit-\\nted declarations from three other inmates who testified that\\n\\f4 No. 17-3378\\n\\nKloth stood directly behind Leiser “every time” she worked\\nand that she would stand behind him until he started shaking\\nand sweating. Another inmate, Loren Leiser (Leiser’s brother)\\ntold Kloth that she should not stand behind Leiser because of\\nhis PTSD, explained his symptoms, and that it would be her\\nfault if he “snapped on her.” Leiser’s witnesses testified that\\nafter Kloth stood behind Leiser, he would dump his tray and\\nretreat to his cell where he would shake, sweat, and talk to\\nhimself. Leiser indicated he began skipping meals when\\nKloth was on duty to avoid the risk of experiencing his PTSD\\nsymptoms.\\n Notes from treating clinicians say that Leiser was having\\nproblems with unit staff standing behind him, but they do not\\nindicate he ever identified it was Kloth. Leiser eventually\\ncomplained in writing about Kloth’s behavior to her supervi-\\nsors, Stoudt and Richardson. Though the written complaints\\nto Stoudt did not indicate Kloth was engaging in conduct\\nwhich triggered his PTSD, the letter he wrote to Warden Rich-\\nardson specifically requested that Kloth be prohibited from\\nstanding behind him for that reason. Neither Stoudt nor Rich-\\nardson acted on these complaints.\\n Leiser sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on November 30, 2015.\\nAmong other claims, Leiser alleged that Kloth was intention-\\nally causing him psychological harm by repeatedly attempt-\\ning to trigger his PTSD, which he said violated the Eighth\\nAmendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punish-\\nments. He also sued Stoudt and Richardson for failing to pro-\\ntect him from Kloth’s behavior.\\n Following a mandatory screening of the in forma pauperis\\ncomplaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the district court permit-\\nted Leiser to proceed on the Eighth Amendment claim against\\n\\fNo. 17-3378 5\\n\\nKloth and failure-to-protect claims against Stoudt and Rich-\\nardson. The defendants later moved for summary judgment.\\nThey argued that Kloth’s behavior did not rise to the level of\\ncruel and unusual punishment, and even if it did, the evi-\\ndence did not establish that the defendants knew that Leiser’s\\nPTSD was triggered when Kloth stood behind him. Regard-\\nless, they argued, defendants were entitled to qualified im-\\nmunity because if there was a constitutional violation, the le-\\ngal rule was not clearly established at the time of Kloth’s al-\\nleged conduct.\\n The court denied the defendants’ motion for summary\\njudgment, despite acknowledging it was not persuaded that\\nLeiser met the requirements discussed in Calhoun v. DeTella,\\n319 F.3d 936, 939 (7th Cir. 2003), that is, evidence that Kloth’s\\nactions were not done for a legitimate penological reason and\\nwere instead intended to humiliate and inflict psychological\\npain. The court held that a jury could find Kloth violated the\\nEighth Amendment when she increased the amount of time\\nshe spent standing behind Leiser after she learned of his\\nPTSD. Regarding qualified immunity, the district court found\\nthat Leiser had a clearly established right to be free from in-\\ntentionally inflicted psychological harm at the time of these\\nevents, making the defendants ineligible for qualified immun-\\nity. This interlocutory appeal followed.\\nII. Analysis\\n A. Appellate Jurisdiction\\n We have jurisdiction to hear this appeal because “a district\\ncourt’s denial of a claim of qualified immunity, to the extent\\nthat it turns on an issue of law, is an appealable ‘final decision’\\nwithin the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291 notwithstanding the\\n\\f6 No. 17-3378\\n\\nabsence of a final judgment.” Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511,\\n530 (1985); see also, e.g., Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 319–20\\n(1995). We review the denial de novo, considering whether the\\ndefendants were entitled to qualified immunity when view-\\ning the facts in the light most favorable to Leiser as the non-\\nmoving party. Howell v. Smith, 853 F.3d 892, 897 (7th Cir.\\n2017), citing Estate of Escobedo v. Bender, 600 F.3d 770, 778 (7th\\nCir. 2010).\\n Leiser contends we do not have jurisdiction because this\\nappeal is really a “back-door effort” to contest facts, rather\\nthan to resolve an issue of law. “[A]n appellant challenging a\\ndistrict court’s denial of qualified immunity effectively pleads\\nhimself out of court by interposing disputed factual issues in\\nhis argument.” Gutierrez v. Kermon, 722 F.3d 1003, 1010 (7th\\nCir. 2013); see also Gant v. Hartman, 924 F.3d 445, 451 (7th Cir.\\n2019) (dismissing officer’s appeal of denial of qualified im-\\nmunity because his argument depended on disputed facts).\\nFor purposes of this appeal, however, appellants\\nacknowledge that all issues of material fact must be resolved\\nin Leiser’s favor and reviewed in a light most favorable to\\nhim. See Knox v. Smith, 342 F.3d 651, 657 (7th Cir. 2003) (de-\\nfendant is not generally permitted to appeal denial of a sum-\\nmary judgment that involves mixed question of law and fact,\\n“but where, as here, one side concedes the other’s facts as to\\nwhat happened, it is a question of law”).\\n Leiser argues that the appeal focuses on the disputed fact\\nof Kloth’s intent, not a legal question, because the operative\\nquestions are whether Kloth stood behind Leiser knowing that\\nthis could trigger his PTSD and if so, whether this rose to the\\nlevel of injury cognizable by the Eighth Amendment. Even\\nframing the questions this way, we have jurisdiction.\\n\\fNo. 17-3378 7\\n\\nAppellants concede—and we assume—for purposes of sum-\\nmary judgment that Kloth did know her conduct could cause\\nLeiser psychological discomfort related to his PTSD. Whether\\nan injury rises to a level “cognizable by the Eighth Amend-\\nment” is an issue of law that we have jurisdiction to decide.\\nThis appeal does not depend on disputed facts, so we have\\njurisdiction to hear this appeal. We now move on to whether\\nthe defendants were entitled to qualified immunity.\\n B. Qualified Immunity\\n Qualified immunity is a doctrine that “protects govern-\\nment officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their\\nconduct does not violate clearly established statutory or con-\\nstitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have\\nknown.’” Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009), quoting\\nHarlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). In other words,\\nqualified immunity does not shield a government official if\\nthe alleged conduct violates a right that was clearly estab-\\nlished at the time. Thayer v. Chiczewski, 705 F.3d 237, 253 (7th\\nCir. 2012).\\n To defeat a defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff\\nmust show two elements: first, that the facts show “a violation\\nof a constitutional right,” and second, that the “constitutional\\nright was clearly established at the time of the alleged viola-\\ntion.” Gill v. City of Milwaukee, 850 F.3d 335, 340 (7th Cir. 2017).\\nWe have discretion to choose which of these elements to ad-\\ndress first. Pearson, 555 U.S. at 236. Because the second prong\\nis dispositive here, we will address only whether the right at\\nissue was clearly established under the circumstances the de-\\nfendant faced. Lovett v. Herbert, 907 F.3d 986, 991–92 (7th Cir.\\n2018), quoting Mason-Funk v. City of Neenah, 895 F.3d 504, 507–\\n08 (7th Cir. 2018).\\n\\f8 No. 17-3378\\n\\n While qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, once\\nraised, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to defeat it. Purvis v.\\nOest, 614 F.3d 713, 717 (7th Cir. 2010). To meet his burden on\\nthis prong, Leiser needed to “show either a reasonably analo-\\ngous case that has both articulated the right at issue and ap-\\nplied it to a factual circumstance similar to the one at hand or\\nthat the violation was so obvious that a reasonable person\\nnecessarily would have recognized it as a violation of the\\nlaw.” Howell, 853 F.3d at 897, quoting Chan v. Wodnicki, 123\\nF.3d 1005, 1008 (7th Cir. 1997). This requirement does not\\nmean Leiser had to find a case “on all fours” with the facts\\nhere. Howell, 853 F.3d at 897, citing Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730,\\n741 (2002). He did, however, need to show some settled au-\\nthority that would have shown a reasonable officer in Kloth’s\\nposition that her alleged actions violated the Constitution.\\nMullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305, 308 (2015).\\n “To be clearly established, a right must be sufficiently clear\\nthat every reasonable official would have understood that\\nwhat he is doing violates that right” meaning that “existing\\nprecedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional\\nquestion beyond debate.” Reichle v. Howards, 566 U.S. 658, 664\\n(2012) (cleaned up). That is, the right must be clearly estab-\\nlished to a degree of specificity such that a reasonable govern-\\nment official would be able to identify the violation with a\\nspecific set of facts.\\n In deciding a question of qualified immunity, the level of\\nspecificity at which the legal question is asked is often deci-\\nsive, and it is possible to be too general and too specific. See,\\ne.g., Thompson v. Cope, 900 F.3d 414, 421–22 (7th Cir. 2018). We\\nmust determine whether a right is clearly established “in light\\nof the specific context of the case, not as a broad general\\n\\fNo. 17-3378 9\\n\\nproposition.” Lovett, 907 F.3d at 992, quoting Mullenix, 136 S.\\nCt. at 308. This requires us to consider “whether the violative\\nnature of particular conduct is clearly established.” Mullenix,\\n136 S. Ct. at 308, quoting Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 742\\n(2011). The Supreme Court has “repeatedly told courts … not\\nto define clearly established law at a high level of generality.”\\nMullenix, 136 S. Ct. at 308, see also al-Kidd, 563 U.S. at 742\\n(“The general proposition, for example, that an unreasonable\\nsearch or seizure violates the Fourth Amendment is of little\\nhelp in determining whether the violative nature of particular\\nconduct is clearly established.”).\\n We first look to whether the Supreme Court or this circuit\\nhas previously held that conduct analogous to the present\\ncase violates the right at issue. Lovett, 907 F.3d at 992. The lack\\nof specific precedent is not necessarily fatal to a qualified im-\\nmunity defense because the Supreme Court has recognized\\nthat “officials can still be on notice that their conduct violates\\nestablished law … in novel factual circumstances.” Safford\\nUnified Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Redding, 557 U.S. 364, 377–78 (2009),\\nquoting Hope, 536 U.S. at 741–42 (no qualified immunity when\\nprison guards handcuffed inmate to hitching post for seven\\nhours without regular water or bathroom breaks for his dis-\\nruptive behavior, despite his having already been subdued).\\nIf no existing precedent puts the conduct beyond debate, we\\nnext consider if this is one of the rare cases, like Hope, where\\nthe state official’s alleged conduct is so egregious that it is an\\nobvious violation of a constitutional right. Abbott v. Sangamon\\nCounty, 705 F.3d 706, 723–24 (7th Cir. 2013) (no qualified im-\\nmunity for police officer for excessive force claims where of-\\nficer tased nonviolent misdemeanant who did not respond to\\ninstructions to turn over after being tased a first time).\\n\\f10 No. 17-3378\\n\\n The district court determined that Leiser had “a clearly es-\\ntablished right to be free from intentionally inflicted psycho-\\nlogical harm.” Leiser frames the question differently, as\\n“whether Kloth subjected Leiser to calculated harassment un-\\nrelated to prison needs.” Both of these statements are at too\\nhigh a level of generality. See Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194,\\n199–200 (2004) (remanding denial of summary judgment on\\nqualified immunity because court of appeals found fair warn-\\ning in general tests regarding prohibition of shooting fleeing\\nsuspects rather than the more “particularized” fact of shoot-\\ning fleeing suspects “when persons in the immediate area are\\nat risk from that flight”).\\n As we see the case, the issue is whether it was clearly es-\\ntablished that Kloth was constitutionally required to accom-\\nmodate Leiser’s specific and unique mental health need based\\nsolely on his self-reporting and demands of other inmates, ab-\\nsent instructions from the medical staff.\\n “The Eighth Amendment prohibits unnecessary and wan-\\nton infliction of pain, thus forbidding punishment that is ‘so\\ntotally without penological justification that it results in the\\ngratuitous infliction of suffering.’” Calhoun v. DeTella, 319 F.3d\\n936, 939 (7th Cir. 2003), quoting Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153,\\n173 (1976). This prohibition against cruel and unusual pun-\\nishment of inmates includes both physical and psychological\\nharm. See Beal v. Foster, 803 F.3d 356, 357–58 (7th Cir. 2015)\\n(reversing dismissal of § 1983 claim against prison guard who\\nallegedly made remarks labelling a male inmate as homosex-\\nual, allegedly causing inmate severe psychological harm due\\nto worry of increased likelihood of sexual assaults, thus mak-\\ning it more than “simple verbal harassment”), quoting Wa-\\ntison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012).\\n\\fNo. 17-3378 11\\n\\n Inmates have long had a clearly established right to be free\\nfrom intentionally inflicted psychological torment and humil-\\niation unrelated to penological interests. Hudson v. Palmer, 468\\nU.S. 517, 530 (1984) (mentioning the Eighth Amendment pro-\\ntects against “calculated harassment unrelated to prison\\nneeds”); King v. McCarty, 781 F.3d 889, 892 (7th Cir. 2015) (re-\\nversing dismissal; inmate plausibly alleged see-through\\njumpsuit that exposed his genitals during transfer to new\\nprison had no penological purpose and only intended to hu-\\nmiliate and inflict psychological pain in violation of Eighth\\nAmendment); Beal, 803 F.3d at 359 (jury could find correc-\\ntional officer’s verbal and nonverbal harassment was cruel\\nand unusual because it “may have made him a pariah to his\\nfellow inmates and inflicted significant psychological harm”);\\nMays v. Springborn, 575 F.3d 643, 649 (7th Cir. 2009) (reversing\\nsummary judgment for prison guards in light of inmates’ al-\\nlegations of strip searches publicly conducted in cold room\\nwith guards who did not change their latex gloves and made\\ndemeaning comments to inmates; genuine dispute over\\nwhether searches “were conducted in a harassing manner in-\\ntended to humiliate and cause psychological pain”). How-\\never, “not every psychological discomfort a prisoner endures\\namounts to a constitutional violation.” Calhoun, 319 F.3d at\\n939.\\n Leiser argues that Kloth had a constitutional obligation to\\nmodify her movements around the common area to avoid\\nstanding directly behind Leiser after he informed her that this\\nproximity to him exacerbated his self-reported PTSD. How-\\never, none of the cases from this circuit he relies upon have\\nfacts closely analogous to those here. Se Davis v. Wessel, 792\\nF.3d 793, 796 (7th Cir. 2015) (body restraints); Mays, 575 F.3d\\n\\f12 No. 17-3378\\n\\nat 649 (strip searches); Delaney v. DeTella, 256 F.3d 679, 681–82\\n(7th Cir. 2001) (conditions of confinement).\\n The cases Leiser cites from other circuits also fail to show\\nthis right was clearly established. The only authority he points\\nto that deals with psychological harm rather than physical\\nharm or threats is OʹConnor v. Huard, 117 F.3d 12, 17 (1st Cir.\\n1997), where the First Circuit considered the denial of quali-\\nfied immunity under a plain error standard because the de-\\nfendant had failed to preserve the affirmative defense. There,\\na jury found for the former pretrial detainee who had claimed\\nthat a correctional officer deprived him of mental health med-\\nication and intentionally triggered his anxiety attacks. Id. at\\n15. The district judge denied the officer’s motion for judgment\\nnotwithstanding the verdict, where she asserted for the first\\ntime that she was entitled to qualified immunity. The First\\nCircuit affirmed the verdict for the plaintiff because the officer\\n“never brought forward any evidence suggesting that her ac-\\ntions were objectively reasonable in light of [plaintiff’s] clearly\\nestablished due process right.” Id. at 17. Though O’Connor\\npresents closer facts than the other cases Leiser cites, it in-\\nvolved the denial of access to prescribed medications, which\\nwould clearly interfere with prescribed medical treatment. In\\naddition, the differences in procedural posture and standard\\nof review undermine his argument that the right at issue here\\nwas clearly established at the time of Kloth’s conduct.\\n Because he does not provide an analogous case, we now\\nconsider whether Leiser established that Kloth’s conduct was\\nso outrageous that no reasonable correctional officer would\\nhave believed the conduct was legal. He did not meet this bur-\\nden. As noted above, in some “rare cases,” such as Hope v.\\nPelzer, where the constitutional violation is “patently\\n\\fNo. 17-3378 13\\n\\nobvious,” the plaintiffs may not need to cite closely analogous\\ncases because “widespread compliance with a clearly appar-\\nent law may have prevented the issue from previously being\\nlitigated.” Jacobs v. City of Chicago, 215 F.3d 758, 767 (7th Cir.\\n2000). For example, in Abbott v. Sangamon County, qualified\\nimmunity did not apply despite the lack of analogous cases\\nbecause it was clearly “unlawful to deploy a taser in dart\\nmode against a nonviolent misdemeanant who had just been\\ntased in dart mode and made no movement when, after the\\nfirst tasing, the officer instructed her to turn over.” 705 F.3d\\n706, 732 (7th Cir. 2013); cf. Lovett, 907 F.3d at 993 (not “egre-\\ngiously” or “obviously unreasonable” to assign a severely in-\\ntoxicated pre-trial detainee a top bunk from which he fell and\\ndied); Kemp v. Liebel, 877 F.3d 346, 353–54 (7th Cir. 2017) (qual-\\nified immunity applies on Free Exercise claim where no anal-\\nogous case identified and it was not egregious or unreasona-\\nble for Jewish prisoners to be unintentionally denied religious\\nservices for several months after transfer to a new prison).\\n At the time of Kloth’s conduct here, it was not clearly es-\\ntablished that she was constitutionally required to avoid\\nstanding behind Leiser as a result of his self-reporting of a\\npending (albeit eventual) diagnosis. Such conduct, if intended\\nto provoke a negative response from Leiser, may have been\\nunprofessional and unjustified, but the law did not make clear\\nthat it amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. Leiser’s\\nclaim here implies that prison staff have a constitutional obli-\\ngation to modify the way they do their jobs based solely on an\\ninmate’s assertion that their actions elicit extreme psycholog-\\nical responses. We must recognize the risk that such a rule of\\nlaw, which would apply without orders from prison medical\\nstaff, could create a real danger of inmates manipulating\\n\\f14 No. 17-3378\\n\\ncorrectional officers for purposes unrelated to their mental\\nhealth.\\n This would be an entirely different case if Leiser had been\\ndiagnosed with PTSD and the medical staff had ordered cor-\\nrectional staff to provide an accommodation for Leiser that\\nKloth ignored. Generally, non-medical staff of jails and pris-\\nons must comply with medical directives, which includes\\nmental health accommodations. Mitchell v. Kallas, 895 F.3d\\n492, 499 (7th Cir. 2018) (“An absence of treatment is equally\\nactionable whether the inmate’s suffering is physical or psy-\\nchological.”); Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742, 752–53 (7th Cir.\\n2011) (refusal to provide inmate with prescribed medication\\nor to follow advice of specialists can violate the Eighth\\nAmendment); Ralston v. McGovern, 167 F.3d 1160, 1161–62\\n(7th Cir. 1999) (reversing summary judgment because non-\\nmedical prison guard’s refusal to comply with physician’s\\ntherapy decision could be cruel and unusual).\\n While the lack of an accommodation directive from a psy-\\nchiatrist should not be treated as permission to harass inmates\\nin any manner, it is not unreasonable for a non-medical prison\\nstaff member to assume that a treating physician would have\\nordered an accommodation if one was necessary. See Arnett,\\n658 F.3d at 755 (recognizing non-medical prison staff “will\\ngenerally be justified in believing that the prisoner is in capa-\\nble hands” when relying on expertise of medical personnel);\\nBerry v. Peterman, 604 F.3d 435, 440 (7th Cir. 2010) (“As a prac-\\ntical matter, it would be unwise to require more of a nonmed-\\nical staff member” than reliance on prison medical staff, as\\n“the law encourages non-medical security and administrative\\npersonnel at jails and prisons to defer to the professional med-\\nical judgments”).\\n\\fNo. 17-3378 15\\n\\n Kloth is entitled to summary judgment because Leiser did\\nnot establish that he had a clearly established constitutional\\nright to an accommodation of a self-reported mental diagno-\\nsis without confirmation from medical staff or existence of a\\ntreatment plan. This conclusion means that defendants Stoudt\\nand Richardson are also entitled to summary judgment. See,\\ne.g., Gill v. City of Milwaukee, 850 F.3d 335, 342 (7th Cir. 2017)\\n(failure-to-intervene claims failed where plaintiff’s right to be\\nfree from certain interrogation tactics was not clearly estab-\\nlished at the time).\\n With high numbers of inmates suffering from mental ill-\\nnesses, the scope of prison medical and non-medical staffs’\\nduties toward mentally ill prisoners is an issue we can expect\\nto face often. We understand that the relationships between\\ninmates and prison staff are not always the model of civility,\\nbut it is essential that correctional staff comply with orders\\nfrom medical staff. Here there were no such orders, so Leiser\\nhas not established that Kloth’s alleged conduct rose to an\\nEighth Amendment violation beyond reasonable debate at\\nthe time of her alleged conduct.\\n We REVERSE the district court’s denial of summary judg-\\nment and REMAND with instructions to grant summary\\njudgment in favor of the appellants.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4422301/\", \"author_raw\": \"David Frank Hamilton\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"EASTERBROOK"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"HAMILTON"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"SCUDDER"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645048/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":8,"string":"8"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Jeffrey D. LEISER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Karen KLOTH, Correctional Sergeant, Et Al., Defendants-Appellants.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-08-01\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 17-3378\nJEFFREY D. LEISER,\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\n v.\n\nKAREN KLOTH, Correctional Sergeant, et al.,\n Defendants-Appellants.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Western District of Wisconsin.\n No. 3:15-cv-00768-slc — Stephen L. Crocker, Magistrate Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED SEPTEMBER 5, 2018 — DECIDED AUGUST 1, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before EASTERBROOK, HAMILTON, and SCUDDER, Circuit\nJudges.\n HAMILTON, Circuit Judge. Jeffrey Leiser was an inmate at\nthe Wisconsin Stanley Correctional Institution where Ser-\ngeant Karen Kloth was employed. Leiser, who was later diag-\nnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder while at Stanley,\nalleged that beginning in 2013 he self-reported his disorder to\nKloth and “informed” her not to stand directly behind him\nbecause doing so triggered his mental health symptoms. He\n\f2 No. 17-3378\n\nclaims Kloth did not comply with his request but instead in-\ncreased the amount of time she stood behind him while pa-\ntrolling common areas. Leiser filed this suit against Kloth, her\nsupervisor, and the warden, claiming that Kloth’s behavior\nviolated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel\nand unusual punishment. The district court denied the de-\nfendants’ motion for summary judgment after determining\nthey were not entitled to qualified immunity because Leiser\nhad a well-established right to be free from intentionally in-\nflicted psychological harm. The defendants filed this interloc-\nutory appeal, asking us to resolve the legal question of\nwhether they were, in fact, entitled to qualified immunity. We\nreverse. Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. At the\nrelevant times, it did not violate clearly established constitu-\ntional law for non-medical correctional staff to refuse to pro-\nvide a prisoner with what amounts to a medical accommoda-\ntion that had not been ordered by medical staff and the need\nfor which was not obvious to a layperson.\nI. Facts\n We construe the evidence in the light most favorable to\nLeiser as the non-moving party. See Lovett v. Herbert, 907 F.3d\n986, 990 (7th Cir. 2018). At all times relevant, Jeffrey Leiser was\nan inmate in the custody of the Wisconsin Department of Cor-\nrections, housed at the Stanley Correctional Institution. Ser-\ngeant Karen Kloth was a correctional officer who worked in\nLeiser’s unit. Kloth reported to Unit Manager Paula Stoudt\nand in turn to Warden Reed Richardson.\n Leiser was housed in Stanley’s mental health unit. He\nstruggled with numerous mental health issues, including at\ntimes suicidal tendencies. Especially relevant to this case, the\npsychological services staff eventually diagnosed Leiser with\n\fNo. 17-3378 3\n\nPost Traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”) stemming from a\nsexual attack he suffered as a child. Leiser alleges that because\nof this attack, when someone stands directly behind him, he\nexperiences flashbacks and may become angry, knock his\nhead against a wall, break out in a sweat, yell, scream, and\nwant to hurt whoever triggered the episode. Leiser told staff\nin the Psychological Services Unit he was experiencing PTSD\nsymptoms as early as October 2014, but he was not diagnosed\nwith the disorder until some time in the spring of 2015.\n While at Stanley, Leiser met regularly with staff from the\nPsychological Services Unit. On March 30, 2015, he told his\ntreating clinician that he could not tolerate people standing\ndirectly behind him and that his anxiety spiked when he was\nwaiting in line for medications in the Health Services Unit.\nHis psychiatrist then arranged for him to receive his medica-\ntions directly from nursing staff, rather than after waiting in\nline, to avoid this discomfort. Leiser did not receive any other\naccommodation for his PTSD from the psychological staff.\nStanley’s Psychological Services Unit does not inform correc-\ntional officers of an inmate’s clinical diagnosis if no accommo-\ndation is required.\n At some point in 2013, well before his diagnosis, Leiser no-\nticed that Sergeant Karen Kloth began standing behind him in\ncommon areas, close enough, he says, to trigger his PTSD.\nLeiser told Kloth that he suffered from PTSD and that he\ncould not tolerate anyone standing so close behind him. Kloth\nresponded by telling Leiser he would just have to “deal with\nit” because she could stand where she wanted.\n After this exchange, Leiser claims, Kloth increased the\namount of time she stood directly behind him. Leiser submit-\nted declarations from three other inmates who testified that\n\f4 No. 17-3378\n\nKloth stood directly behind Leiser “every time” she worked\nand that she would stand behind him until he started shaking\nand sweating. Another inmate, Loren Leiser (Leiser’s brother)\ntold Kloth that she should not stand behind Leiser because of\nhis PTSD, explained his symptoms, and that it would be her\nfault if he “snapped on her.” Leiser’s witnesses testified that\nafter Kloth stood behind Leiser, he would dump his tray and\nretreat to his cell where he would shake, sweat, and talk to\nhimself. Leiser indicated he began skipping meals when\nKloth was on duty to avoid the risk of experiencing his PTSD\nsymptoms.\n Notes from treating clinicians say that Leiser was having\nproblems with unit staff standing behind him, but they do not\nindicate he ever identified it was Kloth. Leiser eventually\ncomplained in writing about Kloth’s behavior to her supervi-\nsors, Stoudt and Richardson. Though the written complaints\nto Stoudt did not indicate Kloth was engaging in conduct\nwhich triggered his PTSD, the letter he wrote to Warden Rich-\nardson specifically requested that Kloth be prohibited from\nstanding behind him for that reason. Neither Stoudt nor Rich-\nardson acted on these complaints.\n Leiser sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on November 30, 2015.\nAmong other claims, Leiser alleged that Kloth was intention-\nally causing him psychological harm by repeatedly attempt-\ning to trigger his PTSD, which he said violated the Eighth\nAmendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punish-\nments. He also sued Stoudt and Richardson for failing to pro-\ntect him from Kloth’s behavior.\n Following a mandatory screening of the in forma pauperis\ncomplaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the district court permit-\nted Leiser to proceed on the Eighth Amendment claim against\n\fNo. 17-3378 5\n\nKloth and failure-to-protect claims against Stoudt and Rich-\nardson. The defendants later moved for summary judgment.\nThey argued that Kloth’s behavior did not rise to the level of\ncruel and unusual punishment, and even if it did, the evi-\ndence did not establish that the defendants knew that Leiser’s\nPTSD was triggered when Kloth stood behind him. Regard-\nless, they argued, defendants were entitled to qualified im-\nmunity because if there was a constitutional violation, the le-\ngal rule was not clearly established at the time of Kloth’s al-\nleged conduct.\n The court denied the defendants’ motion for summary\njudgment, despite acknowledging it was not persuaded that\nLeiser met the requirements discussed in Calhoun v. DeTella,\n319 F.3d 936, 939 (7th Cir. 2003), that is, evidence that Kloth’s\nactions were not done for a legitimate penological reason and\nwere instead intended to humiliate and inflict psychological\npain. The court held that a jury could find Kloth violated the\nEighth Amendment when she increased the amount of time\nshe spent standing behind Leiser after she learned of his\nPTSD. Regarding qualified immunity, the district court found\nthat Leiser had a clearly established right to be free from in-\ntentionally inflicted psychological harm at the time of these\nevents, making the defendants ineligible for qualified immun-\nity. This interlocutory appeal followed.\nII. Analysis\n A. Appellate Jurisdiction\n We have jurisdiction to hear this appeal because “a district\ncourt’s denial of a claim of qualified immunity, to the extent\nthat it turns on an issue of law, is an appealable ‘final decision’\nwithin the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291 notwithstanding the\n\f6 No. 17-3378\n\nabsence of a final judgment.” Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511,\n530 (1985); see also, e.g., Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 319–20\n(1995). We review the denial de novo, considering whether the\ndefendants were entitled to qualified immunity when view-\ning the facts in the light most favorable to Leiser as the non-\nmoving party. Howell v. Smith, 853 F.3d 892, 897 (7th Cir.\n2017), citing Estate of Escobedo v. Bender, 600 F.3d 770, 778 (7th\nCir. 2010).\n Leiser contends we do not have jurisdiction because this\nappeal is really a “back-door effort” to contest facts, rather\nthan to resolve an issue of law. “[A]n appellant challenging a\ndistrict court’s denial of qualified immunity effectively pleads\nhimself out of court by interposing disputed factual issues in\nhis argument.” Gutierrez v. Kermon, 722 F.3d 1003, 1010 (7th\nCir. 2013); see also Gant v. Hartman, 924 F.3d 445, 451 (7th Cir.\n2019) (dismissing officer’s appeal of denial of qualified im-\nmunity because his argument depended on disputed facts).\nFor purposes of this appeal, however, appellants\nacknowledge that all issues of material fact must be resolved\nin Leiser’s favor and reviewed in a light most favorable to\nhim. See Knox v. Smith, 342 F.3d 651, 657 (7th Cir. 2003) (de-\nfendant is not generally permitted to appeal denial of a sum-\nmary judgment that involves mixed question of law and fact,\n“but where, as here, one side concedes the other’s facts as to\nwhat happened, it is a question of law”).\n Leiser argues that the appeal focuses on the disputed fact\nof Kloth’s intent, not a legal question, because the operative\nquestions are whether Kloth stood behind Leiser knowing that\nthis could trigger his PTSD and if so, whether this rose to the\nlevel of injury cognizable by the Eighth Amendment. Even\nframing the questions this way, we have jurisdiction.\n\fNo. 17-3378 7\n\nAppellants concede—and we assume—for purposes of sum-\nmary judgment that Kloth did know her conduct could cause\nLeiser psychological discomfort related to his PTSD. Whether\nan injury rises to a level “cognizable by the Eighth Amend-\nment” is an issue of law that we have jurisdiction to decide.\nThis appeal does not depend on disputed facts, so we have\njurisdiction to hear this appeal. We now move on to whether\nthe defendants were entitled to qualified immunity.\n B. Qualified Immunity\n Qualified immunity is a doctrine that “protects govern-\nment officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their\nconduct does not violate clearly established statutory or con-\nstitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have\nknown.’” Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009), quoting\nHarlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). In other words,\nqualified immunity does not shield a government official if\nthe alleged conduct violates a right that was clearly estab-\nlished at the time. Thayer v. Chiczewski, 705 F.3d 237, 253 (7th\nCir. 2012).\n To defeat a defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff\nmust show two elements: first, that the facts show “a violation\nof a constitutional right,” and second, that the “constitutional\nright was clearly established at the time of the alleged viola-\ntion.” Gill v. City of Milwaukee, 850 F.3d 335, 340 (7th Cir. 2017).\nWe have discretion to choose which of these elements to ad-\ndress first. Pearson, 555 U.S. at 236. Because the second prong\nis dispositive here, we will address only whether the right at\nissue was clearly established under the circumstances the de-\nfendant faced. Lovett v. Herbert, 907 F.3d 986, 991–92 (7th Cir.\n2018), quoting Mason-Funk v. City of Neenah, 895 F.3d 504, 507–\n08 (7th Cir. 2018).\n\f8 No. 17-3378\n\n While qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, once\nraised, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to defeat it. Purvis v.\nOest, 614 F.3d 713, 717 (7th Cir. 2010). To meet his burden on\nthis prong, Leiser needed to “show either a reasonably analo-\ngous case that has both articulated the right at issue and ap-\nplied it to a factual circumstance similar to the one at hand or\nthat the violation was so obvious that a reasonable person\nnecessarily would have recognized it as a violation of the\nlaw.” Howell, 853 F.3d at 897, quoting Chan v. Wodnicki, 123\nF.3d 1005, 1008 (7th Cir. 1997). This requirement does not\nmean Leiser had to find a case “on all fours” with the facts\nhere. Howell, 853 F.3d at 897, citing Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730,\n741 (2002). He did, however, need to show some settled au-\nthority that would have shown a reasonable officer in Kloth’s\nposition that her alleged actions violated the Constitution.\nMullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305, 308 (2015).\n “To be clearly established, a right must be sufficiently clear\nthat every reasonable official would have understood that\nwhat he is doing violates that right” meaning that “existing\nprecedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional\nquestion beyond debate.” Reichle v. Howards, 566 U.S. 658, 664\n(2012) (cleaned up). That is, the right must be clearly estab-\nlished to a degree of specificity such that a reasonable govern-\nment official would be able to identify the violation with a\nspecific set of facts.\n In deciding a question of qualified immunity, the level of\nspecificity at which the legal question is asked is often deci-\nsive, and it is possible to be too general and too specific. See,\ne.g., Thompson v. Cope, 900 F.3d 414, 421–22 (7th Cir. 2018). We\nmust determine whether a right is clearly established “in light\nof the specific context of the case, not as a broad general\n\fNo. 17-3378 9\n\nproposition.” Lovett, 907 F.3d at 992, quoting Mullenix, 136 S.\nCt. at 308. This requires us to consider “whether the violative\nnature of particular conduct is clearly established.” Mullenix,\n136 S. Ct. at 308, quoting Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 742\n(2011). The Supreme Court has “repeatedly told courts … not\nto define clearly established law at a high level of generality.”\nMullenix, 136 S. Ct. at 308, see also al-Kidd, 563 U.S. at 742\n(“The general proposition, for example, that an unreasonable\nsearch or seizure violates the Fourth Amendment is of little\nhelp in determining whether the violative nature of particular\nconduct is clearly established.”).\n We first look to whether the Supreme Court or this circuit\nhas previously held that conduct analogous to the present\ncase violates the right at issue. Lovett, 907 F.3d at 992. The lack\nof specific precedent is not necessarily fatal to a qualified im-\nmunity defense because the Supreme Court has recognized\nthat “officials can still be on notice that their conduct violates\nestablished law … in novel factual circumstances.” Safford\nUnified Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Redding, 557 U.S. 364, 377–78 (2009),\nquoting Hope, 536 U.S. at 741–42 (no qualified immunity when\nprison guards handcuffed inmate to hitching post for seven\nhours without regular water or bathroom breaks for his dis-\nruptive behavior, despite his having already been subdued).\nIf no existing precedent puts the conduct beyond debate, we\nnext consider if this is one of the rare cases, like Hope, where\nthe state official’s alleged conduct is so egregious that it is an\nobvious violation of a constitutional right. Abbott v. Sangamon\nCounty, 705 F.3d 706, 723–24 (7th Cir. 2013) (no qualified im-\nmunity for police officer for excessive force claims where of-\nficer tased nonviolent misdemeanant who did not respond to\ninstructions to turn over after being tased a first time).\n\f10 No. 17-3378\n\n The district court determined that Leiser had “a clearly es-\ntablished right to be free from intentionally inflicted psycho-\nlogical harm.” Leiser frames the question differently, as\n“whether Kloth subjected Leiser to calculated harassment un-\nrelated to prison needs.” Both of these statements are at too\nhigh a level of generality. See Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194,\n199–200 (2004) (remanding denial of summary judgment on\nqualified immunity because court of appeals found fair warn-\ning in general tests regarding prohibition of shooting fleeing\nsuspects rather than the more “particularized” fact of shoot-\ning fleeing suspects “when persons in the immediate area are\nat risk from that flight”).\n As we see the case, the issue is whether it was clearly es-\ntablished that Kloth was constitutionally required to accom-\nmodate Leiser’s specific and unique mental health need based\nsolely on his self-reporting and demands of other inmates, ab-\nsent instructions from the medical staff.\n “The Eighth Amendment prohibits unnecessary and wan-\nton infliction of pain, thus forbidding punishment that is ‘so\ntotally without penological justification that it results in the\ngratuitous infliction of suffering.’” Calhoun v. DeTella, 319 F.3d\n936, 939 (7th Cir. 2003), quoting Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153,\n173 (1976). This prohibition against cruel and unusual pun-\nishment of inmates includes both physical and psychological\nharm. See Beal v. Foster, 803 F.3d 356, 357–58 (7th Cir. 2015)\n(reversing dismissal of § 1983 claim against prison guard who\nallegedly made remarks labelling a male inmate as homosex-\nual, allegedly causing inmate severe psychological harm due\nto worry of increased likelihood of sexual assaults, thus mak-\ning it more than “simple verbal harassment”), quoting Wa-\ntison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012).\n\fNo. 17-3378 11\n\n Inmates have long had a clearly established right to be free\nfrom intentionally inflicted psychological torment and humil-\niation unrelated to penological interests. Hudson v. Palmer, 468\nU.S. 517, 530 (1984) (mentioning the Eighth Amendment pro-\ntects against “calculated harassment unrelated to prison\nneeds”); King v. McCarty, 781 F.3d 889, 892 (7th Cir. 2015) (re-\nversing dismissal; inmate plausibly alleged see-through\njumpsuit that exposed his genitals during transfer to new\nprison had no penological purpose and only intended to hu-\nmiliate and inflict psychological pain in violation of Eighth\nAmendment); Beal, 803 F.3d at 359 (jury could find correc-\ntional officer’s verbal and nonverbal harassment was cruel\nand unusual because it “may have made him a pariah to his\nfellow inmates and inflicted significant psychological harm”);\nMays v. Springborn, 575 F.3d 643, 649 (7th Cir. 2009) (reversing\nsummary judgment for prison guards in light of inmates’ al-\nlegations of strip searches publicly conducted in cold room\nwith guards who did not change their latex gloves and made\ndemeaning comments to inmates; genuine dispute over\nwhether searches “were conducted in a harassing manner in-\ntended to humiliate and cause psychological pain”). How-\never, “not every psychological discomfort a prisoner endures\namounts to a constitutional violation.” Calhoun, 319 F.3d at\n939.\n Leiser argues that Kloth had a constitutional obligation to\nmodify her movements around the common area to avoid\nstanding directly behind Leiser after he informed her that this\nproximity to him exacerbated his self-reported PTSD. How-\never, none of the cases from this circuit he relies upon have\nfacts closely analogous to those here. Se Davis v. Wessel, 792\nF.3d 793, 796 (7th Cir. 2015) (body restraints); Mays, 575 F.3d\n\f12 No. 17-3378\n\nat 649 (strip searches); Delaney v. DeTella, 256 F.3d 679, 681–82\n(7th Cir. 2001) (conditions of confinement).\n The cases Leiser cites from other circuits also fail to show\nthis right was clearly established. The only authority he points\nto that deals with psychological harm rather than physical\nharm or threats is OʹConnor v. Huard, 117 F.3d 12, 17 (1st Cir.\n1997), where the First Circuit considered the denial of quali-\nfied immunity under a plain error standard because the de-\nfendant had failed to preserve the affirmative defense. There,\na jury found for the former pretrial detainee who had claimed\nthat a correctional officer deprived him of mental health med-\nication and intentionally triggered his anxiety attacks. Id. at\n15. The district judge denied the officer’s motion for judgment\nnotwithstanding the verdict, where she asserted for the first\ntime that she was entitled to qualified immunity. The First\nCircuit affirmed the verdict for the plaintiff because the officer\n“never brought forward any evidence suggesting that her ac-\ntions were objectively reasonable in light of [plaintiff’s] clearly\nestablished due process right.” Id. at 17. Though O’Connor\npresents closer facts than the other cases Leiser cites, it in-\nvolved the denial of access to prescribed medications, which\nwould clearly interfere with prescribed medical treatment. In\naddition, the differences in procedural posture and standard\nof review undermine his argument that the right at issue here\nwas clearly established at the time of Kloth’s conduct.\n Because he does not provide an analogous case, we now\nconsider whether Leiser established that Kloth’s conduct was\nso outrageous that no reasonable correctional officer would\nhave believed the conduct was legal. He did not meet this bur-\nden. As noted above, in some “rare cases,” such as Hope v.\nPelzer, where the constitutional violation is “patently\n\fNo. 17-3378 13\n\nobvious,” the plaintiffs may not need to cite closely analogous\ncases because “widespread compliance with a clearly appar-\nent law may have prevented the issue from previously being\nlitigated.” Jacobs v. City of Chicago, 215 F.3d 758, 767 (7th Cir.\n2000). For example, in Abbott v. Sangamon County, qualified\nimmunity did not apply despite the lack of analogous cases\nbecause it was clearly “unlawful to deploy a taser in dart\nmode against a nonviolent misdemeanant who had just been\ntased in dart mode and made no movement when, after the\nfirst tasing, the officer instructed her to turn over.” 705 F.3d\n706, 732 (7th Cir. 2013); cf. Lovett, 907 F.3d at 993 (not “egre-\ngiously” or “obviously unreasonable” to assign a severely in-\ntoxicated pre-trial detainee a top bunk from which he fell and\ndied); Kemp v. Liebel, 877 F.3d 346, 353–54 (7th Cir. 2017) (qual-\nified immunity applies on Free Exercise claim where no anal-\nogous case identified and it was not egregious or unreasona-\nble for Jewish prisoners to be unintentionally denied religious\nservices for several months after transfer to a new prison).\n At the time of Kloth’s conduct here, it was not clearly es-\ntablished that she was constitutionally required to avoid\nstanding behind Leiser as a result of his self-reporting of a\npending (albeit eventual) diagnosis. Such conduct, if intended\nto provoke a negative response from Leiser, may have been\nunprofessional and unjustified, but the law did not make clear\nthat it amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. Leiser’s\nclaim here implies that prison staff have a constitutional obli-\ngation to modify the way they do their jobs based solely on an\ninmate’s assertion that their actions elicit extreme psycholog-\nical responses. We must recognize the risk that such a rule of\nlaw, which would apply without orders from prison medical\nstaff, could create a real danger of inmates manipulating\n\f14 No. 17-3378\n\ncorrectional officers for purposes unrelated to their mental\nhealth.\n This would be an entirely different case if Leiser had been\ndiagnosed with PTSD and the medical staff had ordered cor-\nrectional staff to provide an accommodation for Leiser that\nKloth ignored. Generally, non-medical staff of jails and pris-\nons must comply with medical directives, which includes\nmental health accommodations. Mitchell v. Kallas, 895 F.3d\n492, 499 (7th Cir. 2018) (“An absence of treatment is equally\nactionable whether the inmate’s suffering is physical or psy-\nchological.”); Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742, 752–53 (7th Cir.\n2011) (refusal to provide inmate with prescribed medication\nor to follow advice of specialists can violate the Eighth\nAmendment); Ralston v. McGovern, 167 F.3d 1160, 1161–62\n(7th Cir. 1999) (reversing summary judgment because non-\nmedical prison guard’s refusal to comply with physician’s\ntherapy decision could be cruel and unusual).\n While the lack of an accommodation directive from a psy-\nchiatrist should not be treated as permission to harass inmates\nin any manner, it is not unreasonable for a non-medical prison\nstaff member to assume that a treating physician would have\nordered an accommodation if one was necessary. See Arnett,\n658 F.3d at 755 (recognizing non-medical prison staff “will\ngenerally be justified in believing that the prisoner is in capa-\nble hands” when relying on expertise of medical personnel);\nBerry v. Peterman, 604 F.3d 435, 440 (7th Cir. 2010) (“As a prac-\ntical matter, it would be unwise to require more of a nonmed-\nical staff member” than reliance on prison medical staff, as\n“the law encourages non-medical security and administrative\npersonnel at jails and prisons to defer to the professional med-\nical judgments”).\n\fNo. 17-3378 15\n\n Kloth is entitled to summary judgment because Leiser did\nnot establish that he had a clearly established constitutional\nright to an accommodation of a self-reported mental diagno-\nsis without confirmation from medical staff or existence of a\ntreatment plan. This conclusion means that defendants Stoudt\nand Richardson are also entitled to summary judgment. See,\ne.g., Gill v. City of Milwaukee, 850 F.3d 335, 342 (7th Cir. 2017)\n(failure-to-intervene claims failed where plaintiff’s right to be\nfree from certain interrogation tactics was not clearly estab-\nlished at the time).\n With high numbers of inmates suffering from mental ill-\nnesses, the scope of prison medical and non-medical staffs’\nduties toward mentally ill prisoners is an issue we can expect\nto face often. We understand that the relationships between\ninmates and prison staff are not always the model of civility,\nbut it is essential that correctional staff comply with orders\nfrom medical staff. Here there were no such orders, so Leiser\nhas not established that Kloth’s alleged conduct rose to an\nEighth Amendment violation beyond reasonable debate at\nthe time of her alleged conduct.\n We REVERSE the district court’s denial of summary judg-\nment and REMAND with instructions to grant summary\njudgment in favor of the appellants.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Jeffrey D. LEISER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Karen KLOTH, Correctional Sergeant, Et Al., Defendants-Appellants.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-08-01\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 17-3378\\nJEFFREY D. LEISER,\\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\\n v.\\n\\nKAREN KLOTH, Correctional Sergeant, et al.,\\n Defendants-Appellants.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Western District of Wisconsin.\\n No. 3:15-cv-00768-slc — Stephen L. Crocker, Magistrate Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED SEPTEMBER 5, 2018 — DECIDED AUGUST 1, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before EASTERBROOK, HAMILTON, and SCUDDER, Circuit\\nJudges.\\n HAMILTON, Circuit Judge. Jeffrey Leiser was an inmate at\\nthe Wisconsin Stanley Correctional Institution where Ser-\\ngeant Karen Kloth was employed. Leiser, who was later diag-\\nnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder while at Stanley,\\nalleged that beginning in 2013 he self-reported his disorder to\\nKloth and “informed” her not to stand directly behind him\\nbecause doing so triggered his mental health symptoms. He\\n\\f2 No. 17-3378\\n\\nclaims Kloth did not comply with his request but instead in-\\ncreased the amount of time she stood behind him while pa-\\ntrolling common areas. Leiser filed this suit against Kloth, her\\nsupervisor, and the warden, claiming that Kloth’s behavior\\nviolated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel\\nand unusual punishment. The district court denied the de-\\nfendants’ motion for summary judgment after determining\\nthey were not entitled to qualified immunity because Leiser\\nhad a well-established right to be free from intentionally in-\\nflicted psychological harm. The defendants filed this interloc-\\nutory appeal, asking us to resolve the legal question of\\nwhether they were, in fact, entitled to qualified immunity. We\\nreverse. Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. At the\\nrelevant times, it did not violate clearly established constitu-\\ntional law for non-medical correctional staff to refuse to pro-\\nvide a prisoner with what amounts to a medical accommoda-\\ntion that had not been ordered by medical staff and the need\\nfor which was not obvious to a layperson.\\nI. Facts\\n We construe the evidence in the light most favorable to\\nLeiser as the non-moving party. See Lovett v. Herbert, 907 F.3d\\n986, 990 (7th Cir. 2018). At all times relevant, Jeffrey Leiser was\\nan inmate in the custody of the Wisconsin Department of Cor-\\nrections, housed at the Stanley Correctional Institution. Ser-\\ngeant Karen Kloth was a correctional officer who worked in\\nLeiser’s unit. Kloth reported to Unit Manager Paula Stoudt\\nand in turn to Warden Reed Richardson.\\n Leiser was housed in Stanley’s mental health unit. He\\nstruggled with numerous mental health issues, including at\\ntimes suicidal tendencies. Especially relevant to this case, the\\npsychological services staff eventually diagnosed Leiser with\\n\\fNo. 17-3378 3\\n\\nPost Traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”) stemming from a\\nsexual attack he suffered as a child. Leiser alleges that because\\nof this attack, when someone stands directly behind him, he\\nexperiences flashbacks and may become angry, knock his\\nhead against a wall, break out in a sweat, yell, scream, and\\nwant to hurt whoever triggered the episode. Leiser told staff\\nin the Psychological Services Unit he was experiencing PTSD\\nsymptoms as early as October 2014, but he was not diagnosed\\nwith the disorder until some time in the spring of 2015.\\n While at Stanley, Leiser met regularly with staff from the\\nPsychological Services Unit. On March 30, 2015, he told his\\ntreating clinician that he could not tolerate people standing\\ndirectly behind him and that his anxiety spiked when he was\\nwaiting in line for medications in the Health Services Unit.\\nHis psychiatrist then arranged for him to receive his medica-\\ntions directly from nursing staff, rather than after waiting in\\nline, to avoid this discomfort. Leiser did not receive any other\\naccommodation for his PTSD from the psychological staff.\\nStanley’s Psychological Services Unit does not inform correc-\\ntional officers of an inmate’s clinical diagnosis if no accommo-\\ndation is required.\\n At some point in 2013, well before his diagnosis, Leiser no-\\nticed that Sergeant Karen Kloth began standing behind him in\\ncommon areas, close enough, he says, to trigger his PTSD.\\nLeiser told Kloth that he suffered from PTSD and that he\\ncould not tolerate anyone standing so close behind him. Kloth\\nresponded by telling Leiser he would just have to “deal with\\nit” because she could stand where she wanted.\\n After this exchange, Leiser claims, Kloth increased the\\namount of time she stood directly behind him. Leiser submit-\\nted declarations from three other inmates who testified that\\n\\f4 No. 17-3378\\n\\nKloth stood directly behind Leiser “every time” she worked\\nand that she would stand behind him until he started shaking\\nand sweating. Another inmate, Loren Leiser (Leiser’s brother)\\ntold Kloth that she should not stand behind Leiser because of\\nhis PTSD, explained his symptoms, and that it would be her\\nfault if he “snapped on her.” Leiser’s witnesses testified that\\nafter Kloth stood behind Leiser, he would dump his tray and\\nretreat to his cell where he would shake, sweat, and talk to\\nhimself. Leiser indicated he began skipping meals when\\nKloth was on duty to avoid the risk of experiencing his PTSD\\nsymptoms.\\n Notes from treating clinicians say that Leiser was having\\nproblems with unit staff standing behind him, but they do not\\nindicate he ever identified it was Kloth. Leiser eventually\\ncomplained in writing about Kloth’s behavior to her supervi-\\nsors, Stoudt and Richardson. Though the written complaints\\nto Stoudt did not indicate Kloth was engaging in conduct\\nwhich triggered his PTSD, the letter he wrote to Warden Rich-\\nardson specifically requested that Kloth be prohibited from\\nstanding behind him for that reason. Neither Stoudt nor Rich-\\nardson acted on these complaints.\\n Leiser sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on November 30, 2015.\\nAmong other claims, Leiser alleged that Kloth was intention-\\nally causing him psychological harm by repeatedly attempt-\\ning to trigger his PTSD, which he said violated the Eighth\\nAmendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punish-\\nments. He also sued Stoudt and Richardson for failing to pro-\\ntect him from Kloth’s behavior.\\n Following a mandatory screening of the in forma pauperis\\ncomplaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the district court permit-\\nted Leiser to proceed on the Eighth Amendment claim against\\n\\fNo. 17-3378 5\\n\\nKloth and failure-to-protect claims against Stoudt and Rich-\\nardson. The defendants later moved for summary judgment.\\nThey argued that Kloth’s behavior did not rise to the level of\\ncruel and unusual punishment, and even if it did, the evi-\\ndence did not establish that the defendants knew that Leiser’s\\nPTSD was triggered when Kloth stood behind him. Regard-\\nless, they argued, defendants were entitled to qualified im-\\nmunity because if there was a constitutional violation, the le-\\ngal rule was not clearly established at the time of Kloth’s al-\\nleged conduct.\\n The court denied the defendants’ motion for summary\\njudgment, despite acknowledging it was not persuaded that\\nLeiser met the requirements discussed in Calhoun v. DeTella,\\n319 F.3d 936, 939 (7th Cir. 2003), that is, evidence that Kloth’s\\nactions were not done for a legitimate penological reason and\\nwere instead intended to humiliate and inflict psychological\\npain. The court held that a jury could find Kloth violated the\\nEighth Amendment when she increased the amount of time\\nshe spent standing behind Leiser after she learned of his\\nPTSD. Regarding qualified immunity, the district court found\\nthat Leiser had a clearly established right to be free from in-\\ntentionally inflicted psychological harm at the time of these\\nevents, making the defendants ineligible for qualified immun-\\nity. This interlocutory appeal followed.\\nII. Analysis\\n A. Appellate Jurisdiction\\n We have jurisdiction to hear this appeal because “a district\\ncourt’s denial of a claim of qualified immunity, to the extent\\nthat it turns on an issue of law, is an appealable ‘final decision’\\nwithin the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291 notwithstanding the\\n\\f6 No. 17-3378\\n\\nabsence of a final judgment.” Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511,\\n530 (1985); see also, e.g., Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 319–20\\n(1995). We review the denial de novo, considering whether the\\ndefendants were entitled to qualified immunity when view-\\ning the facts in the light most favorable to Leiser as the non-\\nmoving party. Howell v. Smith, 853 F.3d 892, 897 (7th Cir.\\n2017), citing Estate of Escobedo v. Bender, 600 F.3d 770, 778 (7th\\nCir. 2010).\\n Leiser contends we do not have jurisdiction because this\\nappeal is really a “back-door effort” to contest facts, rather\\nthan to resolve an issue of law. “[A]n appellant challenging a\\ndistrict court’s denial of qualified immunity effectively pleads\\nhimself out of court by interposing disputed factual issues in\\nhis argument.” Gutierrez v. Kermon, 722 F.3d 1003, 1010 (7th\\nCir. 2013); see also Gant v. Hartman, 924 F.3d 445, 451 (7th Cir.\\n2019) (dismissing officer’s appeal of denial of qualified im-\\nmunity because his argument depended on disputed facts).\\nFor purposes of this appeal, however, appellants\\nacknowledge that all issues of material fact must be resolved\\nin Leiser’s favor and reviewed in a light most favorable to\\nhim. See Knox v. Smith, 342 F.3d 651, 657 (7th Cir. 2003) (de-\\nfendant is not generally permitted to appeal denial of a sum-\\nmary judgment that involves mixed question of law and fact,\\n“but where, as here, one side concedes the other’s facts as to\\nwhat happened, it is a question of law”).\\n Leiser argues that the appeal focuses on the disputed fact\\nof Kloth’s intent, not a legal question, because the operative\\nquestions are whether Kloth stood behind Leiser knowing that\\nthis could trigger his PTSD and if so, whether this rose to the\\nlevel of injury cognizable by the Eighth Amendment. Even\\nframing the questions this way, we have jurisdiction.\\n\\fNo. 17-3378 7\\n\\nAppellants concede—and we assume—for purposes of sum-\\nmary judgment that Kloth did know her conduct could cause\\nLeiser psychological discomfort related to his PTSD. Whether\\nan injury rises to a level “cognizable by the Eighth Amend-\\nment” is an issue of law that we have jurisdiction to decide.\\nThis appeal does not depend on disputed facts, so we have\\njurisdiction to hear this appeal. We now move on to whether\\nthe defendants were entitled to qualified immunity.\\n B. Qualified Immunity\\n Qualified immunity is a doctrine that “protects govern-\\nment officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their\\nconduct does not violate clearly established statutory or con-\\nstitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have\\nknown.’” Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009), quoting\\nHarlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). In other words,\\nqualified immunity does not shield a government official if\\nthe alleged conduct violates a right that was clearly estab-\\nlished at the time. Thayer v. Chiczewski, 705 F.3d 237, 253 (7th\\nCir. 2012).\\n To defeat a defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff\\nmust show two elements: first, that the facts show “a violation\\nof a constitutional right,” and second, that the “constitutional\\nright was clearly established at the time of the alleged viola-\\ntion.” Gill v. City of Milwaukee, 850 F.3d 335, 340 (7th Cir. 2017).\\nWe have discretion to choose which of these elements to ad-\\ndress first. Pearson, 555 U.S. at 236. Because the second prong\\nis dispositive here, we will address only whether the right at\\nissue was clearly established under the circumstances the de-\\nfendant faced. Lovett v. Herbert, 907 F.3d 986, 991–92 (7th Cir.\\n2018), quoting Mason-Funk v. City of Neenah, 895 F.3d 504, 507–\\n08 (7th Cir. 2018).\\n\\f8 No. 17-3378\\n\\n While qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, once\\nraised, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to defeat it. Purvis v.\\nOest, 614 F.3d 713, 717 (7th Cir. 2010). To meet his burden on\\nthis prong, Leiser needed to “show either a reasonably analo-\\ngous case that has both articulated the right at issue and ap-\\nplied it to a factual circumstance similar to the one at hand or\\nthat the violation was so obvious that a reasonable person\\nnecessarily would have recognized it as a violation of the\\nlaw.” Howell, 853 F.3d at 897, quoting Chan v. Wodnicki, 123\\nF.3d 1005, 1008 (7th Cir. 1997). This requirement does not\\nmean Leiser had to find a case “on all fours” with the facts\\nhere. Howell, 853 F.3d at 897, citing Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730,\\n741 (2002). He did, however, need to show some settled au-\\nthority that would have shown a reasonable officer in Kloth’s\\nposition that her alleged actions violated the Constitution.\\nMullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305, 308 (2015).\\n “To be clearly established, a right must be sufficiently clear\\nthat every reasonable official would have understood that\\nwhat he is doing violates that right” meaning that “existing\\nprecedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional\\nquestion beyond debate.” Reichle v. Howards, 566 U.S. 658, 664\\n(2012) (cleaned up). That is, the right must be clearly estab-\\nlished to a degree of specificity such that a reasonable govern-\\nment official would be able to identify the violation with a\\nspecific set of facts.\\n In deciding a question of qualified immunity, the level of\\nspecificity at which the legal question is asked is often deci-\\nsive, and it is possible to be too general and too specific. See,\\ne.g., Thompson v. Cope, 900 F.3d 414, 421–22 (7th Cir. 2018). We\\nmust determine whether a right is clearly established “in light\\nof the specific context of the case, not as a broad general\\n\\fNo. 17-3378 9\\n\\nproposition.” Lovett, 907 F.3d at 992, quoting Mullenix, 136 S.\\nCt. at 308. This requires us to consider “whether the violative\\nnature of particular conduct is clearly established.” Mullenix,\\n136 S. Ct. at 308, quoting Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 742\\n(2011). The Supreme Court has “repeatedly told courts … not\\nto define clearly established law at a high level of generality.”\\nMullenix, 136 S. Ct. at 308, see also al-Kidd, 563 U.S. at 742\\n(“The general proposition, for example, that an unreasonable\\nsearch or seizure violates the Fourth Amendment is of little\\nhelp in determining whether the violative nature of particular\\nconduct is clearly established.”).\\n We first look to whether the Supreme Court or this circuit\\nhas previously held that conduct analogous to the present\\ncase violates the right at issue. Lovett, 907 F.3d at 992. The lack\\nof specific precedent is not necessarily fatal to a qualified im-\\nmunity defense because the Supreme Court has recognized\\nthat “officials can still be on notice that their conduct violates\\nestablished law … in novel factual circumstances.” Safford\\nUnified Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Redding, 557 U.S. 364, 377–78 (2009),\\nquoting Hope, 536 U.S. at 741–42 (no qualified immunity when\\nprison guards handcuffed inmate to hitching post for seven\\nhours without regular water or bathroom breaks for his dis-\\nruptive behavior, despite his having already been subdued).\\nIf no existing precedent puts the conduct beyond debate, we\\nnext consider if this is one of the rare cases, like Hope, where\\nthe state official’s alleged conduct is so egregious that it is an\\nobvious violation of a constitutional right. Abbott v. Sangamon\\nCounty, 705 F.3d 706, 723–24 (7th Cir. 2013) (no qualified im-\\nmunity for police officer for excessive force claims where of-\\nficer tased nonviolent misdemeanant who did not respond to\\ninstructions to turn over after being tased a first time).\\n\\f10 No. 17-3378\\n\\n The district court determined that Leiser had “a clearly es-\\ntablished right to be free from intentionally inflicted psycho-\\nlogical harm.” Leiser frames the question differently, as\\n“whether Kloth subjected Leiser to calculated harassment un-\\nrelated to prison needs.” Both of these statements are at too\\nhigh a level of generality. See Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194,\\n199–200 (2004) (remanding denial of summary judgment on\\nqualified immunity because court of appeals found fair warn-\\ning in general tests regarding prohibition of shooting fleeing\\nsuspects rather than the more “particularized” fact of shoot-\\ning fleeing suspects “when persons in the immediate area are\\nat risk from that flight”).\\n As we see the case, the issue is whether it was clearly es-\\ntablished that Kloth was constitutionally required to accom-\\nmodate Leiser’s specific and unique mental health need based\\nsolely on his self-reporting and demands of other inmates, ab-\\nsent instructions from the medical staff.\\n “The Eighth Amendment prohibits unnecessary and wan-\\nton infliction of pain, thus forbidding punishment that is ‘so\\ntotally without penological justification that it results in the\\ngratuitous infliction of suffering.’” Calhoun v. DeTella, 319 F.3d\\n936, 939 (7th Cir. 2003), quoting Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153,\\n173 (1976). This prohibition against cruel and unusual pun-\\nishment of inmates includes both physical and psychological\\nharm. See Beal v. Foster, 803 F.3d 356, 357–58 (7th Cir. 2015)\\n(reversing dismissal of § 1983 claim against prison guard who\\nallegedly made remarks labelling a male inmate as homosex-\\nual, allegedly causing inmate severe psychological harm due\\nto worry of increased likelihood of sexual assaults, thus mak-\\ning it more than “simple verbal harassment”), quoting Wa-\\ntison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012).\\n\\fNo. 17-3378 11\\n\\n Inmates have long had a clearly established right to be free\\nfrom intentionally inflicted psychological torment and humil-\\niation unrelated to penological interests. Hudson v. Palmer, 468\\nU.S. 517, 530 (1984) (mentioning the Eighth Amendment pro-\\ntects against “calculated harassment unrelated to prison\\nneeds”); King v. McCarty, 781 F.3d 889, 892 (7th Cir. 2015) (re-\\nversing dismissal; inmate plausibly alleged see-through\\njumpsuit that exposed his genitals during transfer to new\\nprison had no penological purpose and only intended to hu-\\nmiliate and inflict psychological pain in violation of Eighth\\nAmendment); Beal, 803 F.3d at 359 (jury could find correc-\\ntional officer’s verbal and nonverbal harassment was cruel\\nand unusual because it “may have made him a pariah to his\\nfellow inmates and inflicted significant psychological harm”);\\nMays v. Springborn, 575 F.3d 643, 649 (7th Cir. 2009) (reversing\\nsummary judgment for prison guards in light of inmates’ al-\\nlegations of strip searches publicly conducted in cold room\\nwith guards who did not change their latex gloves and made\\ndemeaning comments to inmates; genuine dispute over\\nwhether searches “were conducted in a harassing manner in-\\ntended to humiliate and cause psychological pain”). How-\\never, “not every psychological discomfort a prisoner endures\\namounts to a constitutional violation.” Calhoun, 319 F.3d at\\n939.\\n Leiser argues that Kloth had a constitutional obligation to\\nmodify her movements around the common area to avoid\\nstanding directly behind Leiser after he informed her that this\\nproximity to him exacerbated his self-reported PTSD. How-\\never, none of the cases from this circuit he relies upon have\\nfacts closely analogous to those here. Se Davis v. Wessel, 792\\nF.3d 793, 796 (7th Cir. 2015) (body restraints); Mays, 575 F.3d\\n\\f12 No. 17-3378\\n\\nat 649 (strip searches); Delaney v. DeTella, 256 F.3d 679, 681–82\\n(7th Cir. 2001) (conditions of confinement).\\n The cases Leiser cites from other circuits also fail to show\\nthis right was clearly established. The only authority he points\\nto that deals with psychological harm rather than physical\\nharm or threats is OʹConnor v. Huard, 117 F.3d 12, 17 (1st Cir.\\n1997), where the First Circuit considered the denial of quali-\\nfied immunity under a plain error standard because the de-\\nfendant had failed to preserve the affirmative defense. There,\\na jury found for the former pretrial detainee who had claimed\\nthat a correctional officer deprived him of mental health med-\\nication and intentionally triggered his anxiety attacks. Id. at\\n15. The district judge denied the officer’s motion for judgment\\nnotwithstanding the verdict, where she asserted for the first\\ntime that she was entitled to qualified immunity. The First\\nCircuit affirmed the verdict for the plaintiff because the officer\\n“never brought forward any evidence suggesting that her ac-\\ntions were objectively reasonable in light of [plaintiff’s] clearly\\nestablished due process right.” Id. at 17. Though O’Connor\\npresents closer facts than the other cases Leiser cites, it in-\\nvolved the denial of access to prescribed medications, which\\nwould clearly interfere with prescribed medical treatment. In\\naddition, the differences in procedural posture and standard\\nof review undermine his argument that the right at issue here\\nwas clearly established at the time of Kloth’s conduct.\\n Because he does not provide an analogous case, we now\\nconsider whether Leiser established that Kloth’s conduct was\\nso outrageous that no reasonable correctional officer would\\nhave believed the conduct was legal. He did not meet this bur-\\nden. As noted above, in some “rare cases,” such as Hope v.\\nPelzer, where the constitutional violation is “patently\\n\\fNo. 17-3378 13\\n\\nobvious,” the plaintiffs may not need to cite closely analogous\\ncases because “widespread compliance with a clearly appar-\\nent law may have prevented the issue from previously being\\nlitigated.” Jacobs v. City of Chicago, 215 F.3d 758, 767 (7th Cir.\\n2000). For example, in Abbott v. Sangamon County, qualified\\nimmunity did not apply despite the lack of analogous cases\\nbecause it was clearly “unlawful to deploy a taser in dart\\nmode against a nonviolent misdemeanant who had just been\\ntased in dart mode and made no movement when, after the\\nfirst tasing, the officer instructed her to turn over.” 705 F.3d\\n706, 732 (7th Cir. 2013); cf. Lovett, 907 F.3d at 993 (not “egre-\\ngiously” or “obviously unreasonable” to assign a severely in-\\ntoxicated pre-trial detainee a top bunk from which he fell and\\ndied); Kemp v. Liebel, 877 F.3d 346, 353–54 (7th Cir. 2017) (qual-\\nified immunity applies on Free Exercise claim where no anal-\\nogous case identified and it was not egregious or unreasona-\\nble for Jewish prisoners to be unintentionally denied religious\\nservices for several months after transfer to a new prison).\\n At the time of Kloth’s conduct here, it was not clearly es-\\ntablished that she was constitutionally required to avoid\\nstanding behind Leiser as a result of his self-reporting of a\\npending (albeit eventual) diagnosis. Such conduct, if intended\\nto provoke a negative response from Leiser, may have been\\nunprofessional and unjustified, but the law did not make clear\\nthat it amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. Leiser’s\\nclaim here implies that prison staff have a constitutional obli-\\ngation to modify the way they do their jobs based solely on an\\ninmate’s assertion that their actions elicit extreme psycholog-\\nical responses. We must recognize the risk that such a rule of\\nlaw, which would apply without orders from prison medical\\nstaff, could create a real danger of inmates manipulating\\n\\f14 No. 17-3378\\n\\ncorrectional officers for purposes unrelated to their mental\\nhealth.\\n This would be an entirely different case if Leiser had been\\ndiagnosed with PTSD and the medical staff had ordered cor-\\nrectional staff to provide an accommodation for Leiser that\\nKloth ignored. Generally, non-medical staff of jails and pris-\\nons must comply with medical directives, which includes\\nmental health accommodations. Mitchell v. Kallas, 895 F.3d\\n492, 499 (7th Cir. 2018) (“An absence of treatment is equally\\nactionable whether the inmate’s suffering is physical or psy-\\nchological.”); Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742, 752–53 (7th Cir.\\n2011) (refusal to provide inmate with prescribed medication\\nor to follow advice of specialists can violate the Eighth\\nAmendment); Ralston v. McGovern, 167 F.3d 1160, 1161–62\\n(7th Cir. 1999) (reversing summary judgment because non-\\nmedical prison guard’s refusal to comply with physician’s\\ntherapy decision could be cruel and unusual).\\n While the lack of an accommodation directive from a psy-\\nchiatrist should not be treated as permission to harass inmates\\nin any manner, it is not unreasonable for a non-medical prison\\nstaff member to assume that a treating physician would have\\nordered an accommodation if one was necessary. See Arnett,\\n658 F.3d at 755 (recognizing non-medical prison staff “will\\ngenerally be justified in believing that the prisoner is in capa-\\nble hands” when relying on expertise of medical personnel);\\nBerry v. Peterman, 604 F.3d 435, 440 (7th Cir. 2010) (“As a prac-\\ntical matter, it would be unwise to require more of a nonmed-\\nical staff member” than reliance on prison medical staff, as\\n“the law encourages non-medical security and administrative\\npersonnel at jails and prisons to defer to the professional med-\\nical judgments”).\\n\\fNo. 17-3378 15\\n\\n Kloth is entitled to summary judgment because Leiser did\\nnot establish that he had a clearly established constitutional\\nright to an accommodation of a self-reported mental diagno-\\nsis without confirmation from medical staff or existence of a\\ntreatment plan. This conclusion means that defendants Stoudt\\nand Richardson are also entitled to summary judgment. See,\\ne.g., Gill v. City of Milwaukee, 850 F.3d 335, 342 (7th Cir. 2017)\\n(failure-to-intervene claims failed where plaintiff’s right to be\\nfree from certain interrogation tactics was not clearly estab-\\nlished at the time).\\n With high numbers of inmates suffering from mental ill-\\nnesses, the scope of prison medical and non-medical staffs’\\nduties toward mentally ill prisoners is an issue we can expect\\nto face often. We understand that the relationships between\\ninmates and prison staff are not always the model of civility,\\nbut it is essential that correctional staff comply with orders\\nfrom medical staff. Here there were no such orders, so Leiser\\nhas not established that Kloth’s alleged conduct rose to an\\nEighth Amendment violation beyond reasonable debate at\\nthe time of her alleged conduct.\\n We REVERSE the district court’s denial of summary judg-\\nment and REMAND with instructions to grant summary\\njudgment in favor of the appellants.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3771,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4645049,"string":"4,645,049"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Brian Knutson v. Village of Lakemoor"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-08-01"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-3729"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before MANION, SYKES, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"Daniel Anthony Manion\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-3729\\nBRIAN KNUTSON, et al.,\\n Plaintiffs-Appellants,\\n v.\\n\\nVILLAGE OF LAKEMOOR,\\n Defendant-Appellee.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 1:18-cv-01804 — Marvin E. Aspen, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED APRIL 17, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 1, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before MANION, SYKES, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\\n MANION, Circuit Judge. This class action suit challenges the\\nred light camera program of the Village of Lakemoor, Illinois.\\nThe plaintiffs received violation notices from Lakemoor that\\nthey claim are invalid because the notices lack a proper mu-\\nnicipal code citation. They also claim Lakemoor denied them\\ndue process by limiting the defenses that can be asserted be-\\nfore a hearing officer to contest a violation. The district court\\ndismissed the case for failure to state a claim. We affirm.\\n\\f2 No. 18-3729\\n\\n I. Background\\n Describing the plaintiffs’ claims requires reading several\\nprovisions of Lakemoor’s Municipal Code of Ordinances (the\\n“Code”) together. First, Chapter 1 of the Code outlines the\\nCode’s numbering system: “Each section number of this code\\nshall consist of two component parts separated by a period,\\nthe figure before the period referring to the chapter number\\nand the figure after the period referring to the section within\\nthe chapter.” Lakemoor Mun. Code § 1.01(C).\\n Chapter 41-1/21 of the Code covers traffic violations. It in-\\ncorporates by reference the Illinois Vehicle Code (IVC), and\\nstates “[t]he section numbers used in the [IVC] shall be iden-\\ntical to those section numbers in the Lakemoor Vehicle Code.\\nTherefore, an ordinance violation shall be cited as ‘Chapter\\n41-1/2,’ followed by the corresponding IVC section number.”\\nId. § 41-1/2.01.\\n In 2012, Lakemoor enacted an ordinance titled\\n“AUTOMATED TRAFFIC LAW ENFORCEMENT\\nPROGRAM,” and codified it as Section 14 of Chapter 41-1/2.\\nId. § 41-1/2.14. Section 14 authorizes a system of red light cam-\\neras located at certain intersections to detect and record red\\nlight violations. Id. It states “[i]t shall be a violation of this sec-\\ntion for anyone to operate a vehicle in disregard of a traffic\\ncontrol device or to turn right on a red light where it is posted\\n‘No Turn on Red,’” id. § 41-1/2.14(B), but it also incorporates\\nby reference the IVC’s prohibition of the same conduct, id.\\n§ 41-1/2.14(C)(1), (C)(4) (citing IVC § 11-306).\\n\\n\\n\\n 1\\n This chapter is referred to as Chapter 41-1/2 because it falls between\\nChapters 41 and 42.\\n\\fNo. 18-3729 3\\n\\n When a red light camera captures a vehicle committing a\\nred light violation, Section 14 requires a written violation no-\\ntice to be issued to the registered owner of the vehicle. Id. § 41-\\n1/2.14(C)(4). Section 14 lists the information that the notice\\n“shall include,” such as the name and address of the regis-\\ntered owner of the vehicle, the location, date, and time of the\\nviolation, and, importantly for this appeal, “[t]he violation\\ncharged, with specific reference to that section of the Village\\nof Lakemoor Municipal Code of Ordinances allegedly vio-\\nlated.” Id. § 41-1/2.14(C)(4)(c). The violation notice constitutes\\nprima facie evidence of a violation, which can be rebutted by\\nseveral enumerated defenses. Id. § 41-1/2.14(C)(6). A recipient\\nof a violation notice may request adjudication before a hear-\\ning officer, where he may present only the defenses listed in\\nSection 14(C)(6). The list of defenses does not include chal-\\nlenges to the violation notice’s compliance with Section 14’s\\nrequirements. Id.\\n In its entirety, Section 14 comprises approximately 42 sub-\\nsections and sub-subsections and takes up roughly four full\\npages. At the end of Section 14 is the following parenthetical:\\n“(Ord. 12-O-03, passed 1-26-2012),” referencing the ordinance\\nnumber as it was passed and its date of passage. Lakemoor’s\\nonline ordinance compilation includes a cross-reference chart\\nthat links Ord. No. 12-O-03 to Section 14.2\\n\\n\\n 2 See Village of Lakemoor, Illinois Code of Ordinances, AM. LEGAL PUBL’G\\nCORP., http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Illinois/lakemoor_il/vil\\nlageoflakemoorillinoiscodeofordinance?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$\\nvid=amlegal:lakemoor_il (last visited Aug. 1, 2019). From this page, the\\nentire municipal code is accessible through a navigation panel on the left\\nside of the screen, arranged by chapters and sections. At the very bottom\\n\\f4 No. 18-3729\\n\\n Each plaintiff received at least one such notice of violation.\\nNext to the label “Code Violation and Description,” the no-\\ntices include simply the notation “12-O-03.” However, the no-\\ntices also include photographs of the violation occurrence and\\nstate these photographs depict “a violation of a red light sig-\\nnal and/or law pertaining to ‘Right Turn on Red.’” The notices\\nfurther provide a complete list of defenses and grounds for\\ncontesting the violation as well as instructions for contesting\\nthe violation by mail or in person.\\n All but one of the named plaintiffs chose to pay the $100\\nfine for each violation,3 and none requested a hearing. They\\nthen filed suit in federal court, seeking to certify three classes:\\n(1) all individuals who received a violation notice from Lake-\\nmoor, (2) those who paid the fine, and (3) those who have not\\npaid the fine. The plaintiffs alleged Lakemoor deprived them\\nof due process under color of state law and sought declaratory\\n\\n\\nof this navigation panel is a link labelled “REFERENCES TO\\nORDINANCES” within the expandable folder “PARALLEL\\nREFERENCES.” That page includes a chart of all ordinance numbers ar-\\nranged in numerical order. For each ordinance number, the chart lists the\\ndate on which it was adopted and provides a direct link to the code chap-\\nter(s) and section(s) included in that ordinance. For Ordinance No. 12-O-\\n03, the provided link leads directly to Section 14, although we note the\\nhyperlink text is mislabeled as “§ 4-1/2.14”. Searching for “12-O-03” in the\\npage’s search bar does not lead one to the proper chapter, section, or the\\nordinance cross-reference chart.\\n 3 One outlier plaintiff, Heather Bendl, received multiple violation no-\\ntices but did not voluntarily pay the attached fines. Her state income tax\\nreturn was garnished for the amount due in February 2018, but she later\\nreceived another violation notice in April 2018. The fine for that violation\\nremained unpaid at the time of the filing of the amended complaint.\\n\\fNo. 18-3729 5\\n\\njudgment. They argued the violation notices were void ab in-\\nitio because the notation “12-O-03” does not suffice as a “spe-\\ncific reference to that section of the [Code] allegedly violated.”\\nInstead, reading Lakemoor Municipal Code §§ 1.01, 41-1/2.01,\\nand 41-1/2.14(C)(4)(c) together, they contended the violation\\nnotices must contain a citation to Chapter 41-1/2 of the Code\\nalong with the section number of the IVC dealing with red\\nlight violations (IVC § 11-306(c)). Therefore, the plaintiffs as-\\nserted the proper citation is “Lakemoor Mun. Code § 41-\\n1/2.11-306(c).” They claimed Lakemoor deprived them of due\\nprocess by not including a challenge to the notice’s validity as\\nan available defense under Section 14(C)(6). In addition to\\ntheir due process claim, the plaintiffs asserted a state law un-\\njust enrichment claim based on the same allegations.4\\n The district court held the notices were valid because Sec-\\ntion 14 incorporates by reference IVC § 11-306(c) and “12-O-\\n03” is a parallel session law citation to Section 14 that satisfies\\nthe “specific reference” requirement. Moreover, the district\\n\\n\\n 4 The plaintiffs also asserted a due process claim under the Illinois\\nConstitution and a claim for injunctive relief as a separate count. The\\nplaintiffs abandoned the state constitutional claim at the district court.\\nWith respect to injunctive relief, that is a remedy, not a cause of action,\\nand thus should not be pleaded as a separate count. See Guardians Ass’n v.\\nCivil Serv. Com’n, 463 U.S. 582, 595 (1983) (“Whether a litigant has a cause\\nof action ‘is analytically distinct and prior to the question of what relief, if\\nany, a litigant may be entitled to receive.”); CustomGuide v. CareerBuilder,\\nLLC, 813 F. Supp. 2d 990, 1002 (N.D. Ill. 2011) (“An injunction ‘is an equi-\\ntable remedy, not a separate cause of action.’”). The district court properly\\ndismissed that count on that basis. Furthermore, because we hold the\\nplaintiffs failed to state a claim for violation of due process or unjust en-\\nrichment, they are not entitled to injunctive relief.\\n\\f6 No. 18-3729\\n\\ncourt held the plaintiffs were not deprived of due process by\\nthe limitation of defenses because the defense they sought to\\nassert was not viable. The district court dismissed the case.\\nThe plaintiffs appeal.\\n II. Analysis\\n The plaintiffs assert a due process claim under the Four-\\nteenth Amendment and a state law unjust enrichment claim\\nand seek declaratory judgment.5 We review the district court’s\\ndismissal de novo. Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1081\\n(7th Cir. 2008). “We may affirm a district court’s dismissal or-\\nder on any basis supported by the record.” Craig v. Rich Tp.\\nHigh Sch. Dist. 227, 736 F.3d 1110, 1118 (7th Cir. 2013).\\n A. Due Process Claim\\n The plaintiffs do not invoke the “substantive” due process\\ndoctrine. Instead, their claim asserts only that they were not\\nafforded the minimum procedural protections guaranteed by\\nthe Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.\\n In analyzing a procedural due process claim, we follow a\\ntwo-step process. First, we determine if the plaintiff has been\\ndeprived of a liberty or property interest. Second, we deter-\\nmine if the plaintiff was provided constitutionally sufficient\\nprocess. Grant v. Trs. of Ind. Univ., 870 F.3d 562, 571 (7th Cir.\\n2017). Lakemoor does not dispute the plaintiffs have a pro-\\ntected property interest in the $100 they were fined for each\\nred light violation. Thus, the only question is what—or how\\nmuch—process was due for that deprivation.\\n\\n\\n\\n 5 We have supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim pursuant\\n\\nto 28 U.S.C. § 1367.\\n\\fNo. 18-3729 7\\n\\n “The cornerstone of due process is notice and the oppor-\\ntunity to be heard ‘at a meaningful time and in a meaningful\\nmanner.’” Id. (quoting Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333\\n(1976)). In this case, the plaintiffs received both. They received\\na written notice of each violation, which included a descrip-\\ntion and photograph of the violation as well as the time, date,\\nand location where it occurred. They also had an opportunity\\nto contest the violation before a hearing officer, and the viola-\\ntion notices explained in detail how to request such a hearing.\\nDespite this, the plaintiffs argue they were denied a meaning-\\nful opportunity for hearing because Section 14 limits the de-\\nfenses they can raise before the hearing officer. The limited\\ndefenses do not include challenging the violation notice as\\nvoid for failure to comply with Section 14’s requirements.\\nThis argument is unavailing.\\n The requirements of due process are not rigid; rather, due\\nprocess “is flexible and requires only ‘such procedural protec-\\ntions as the particular situation demands.’” Riano v. McDon-\\nald, 833 F.3d 830, 834 (7th Cir. 2016) (quoting Ringquist v.\\nHampton, 582 F.2d 1138, 1140 (7th Cir. 1978)). Less process is\\ndue where less is at stake. Van Harken v. City of Chicago, 103\\nF.3d 1346, 1353 (7th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, we consider three\\nfactors when determining what process is due before the gov-\\nernment effects a deprivation: (1) the nature of the private in-\\nterest at stake, (2) the risk of erroneous deprivation through\\nthe procedures used, and (3) the governmental interest.\\nMathews, 424 U.S. at 334–35.\\n First, the private interest at stake in this case—a $100\\nfine—is relatively small. See Van Harken, 103 F.3d at 1353 (find-\\ning less process was due where maximum possible penalty\\nfor parking violation was “only $100”). We do not pretend a\\n\\f8 No. 18-3729\\n\\n$100 fine is of no consequence. However, in the grand scheme\\nof deprivations the government can effect, including impris-\\nonment or the seizure of highly valuable property, a $100 fine\\nis among the less serious sort. Accordingly, this factor sug-\\ngests less process was required here.\\n Second, Lakemoor’s limitation of defenses does not pre-\\nsent a risk of erroneous deprivation. Lakemoor allows alleged\\nviolators to contest the violation on various grounds that, if\\ntrue, would refute or alleviate culpability. For example, Sec-\\ntion 14 allows a recipient of a violation notice to assert, inter\\nalia, the following arguments as defenses: the vehicle was\\nowned by or leased to another individual at the time of the\\nviolation; the driver passed through the red light in order to\\nyield to an emergency vehicle; the vehicle cannot be ade-\\nquately identified in the photo; or the driver was already is-\\nsued a citation for the same violation. Lakemoor Mun. Code\\n§ 41-1/2.14(C)(6). By contrast, the plaintiffs’ desired defense\\n(namely, the violation notice did not contain a proper citation\\nto the Code section allegedly violated) has no bearing on cul-\\npability. Preventing alleged violators from asserting this tech-\\nnicality as a defense does not present a risk of erroneous dep-\\nrivation. Thus, this factor weighs in favor of finding the pro-\\ncess provided was constitutionally sufficient.\\n Finally, limiting the universe of possible defenses furthers\\nthe government’s interest in administrative efficiency. In\\nMathews, the Supreme Court noted as relevant the “fiscal and\\nadministrative burdens that the additional or substitute pro-\\ncedural requirement would entail.” 424 U.S. at 335; see also\\nCont’l Training Servs., Inc. v. Cavazos, 893 F.2d 877, 893 (7th Cir.\\n1990) (stating the “conservation of resources and administra-\\ntive efficiency” are “unquestionably” governmental\\n\\fNo. 18-3729 9\\n\\ninterests). Requiring the hearing officer to entertain any de-\\nfenses the alleged violator desires to raise, even those with no\\nbearing on culpability, would create a greater administrative\\nburden and cost for Lakemoor. This factor supports Lake-\\nmoor’s choice to limit the possible defenses to those that re-\\nfute or alleviate culpability.\\n We have previously held a plaintiff is not deprived of a\\nmeaningful opportunity to be heard simply because the de-\\nfense he wishes to assert is not available to him at the pro-\\nvided hearing. Cochran v. Ill. State Toll Highway Auth., 828 F.3d\\n597, 601 (7th Cir. 2016). In Cochran, the plaintiff received notice\\nof a toll violation and was entitled to request a hearing. How-\\never, because the toll violation was a strict liability offense, the\\nplaintiff was prevented from presenting a knowledge defense\\nat the hearing. He argued that this limitation of his defenses\\nrendered the opportunity for hearing meaningless, but we\\ndisagreed. “Although the knowledge defense was not availa-\\nble, other defenses were. Thus, plaintiff was not precluded\\nfrom presenting any defense, and the hearing was not mean-\\ningless.” Id.\\n Similarly, the fact that the plaintiffs in this case could not\\nassert a defense based on the violation notice’s lack of a Code\\ncitation does not mean that the hearing—at which they could\\nhave raised several other defenses—would have been mean-\\ningless. The process that the plaintiffs received was constitu-\\ntionally sufficient, and they have, therefore, failed to state a\\nfederal due process claim.\\n B. Unjust Enrichment Claim\\n The plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim is based on the\\nsame underlying allegations as the due process claim. They\\n\\f10 No. 18-3729\\n\\nassert Lakemoor has been unjustly enriched by receiving pay-\\nment of fines to which it was not entitled.\\n The plaintiffs argue the violation notices were void ab ini-\\ntio because they did not include a proper citation to “that sec-\\ntion of the [Code] allegedly violated” as required by Section\\n14. See Lakemoor Mun. Code § 41-1/2.14(C)(4)(c). This argu-\\nment fails because there is no indication that the “specific ref-\\nerence” requirement was intended to be read as a mandatory\\nprovision rather than a directory one.\\n “A mandatory provision and a directory provision are\\nboth couched in obligatory language, but they differ in that\\nnoncompliance with a mandatory provision vitiates the gov-\\nernmental action, whereas noncompliance with a directory\\nprovision has no such effect.” In re M.I., 2011 IL App (1st)\\n100865, ¶ 47, 964 N.E.2d 72, 83. Under Illinois law, a proce-\\ndural command in a statute is presumed to be directory rather\\nthan mandatory. People v. Geiler, 2016 IL 119095, ¶ 18, 57\\nN.E.3d 1221, 1224–25. That presumption can be overcome\\nonly if (1) the statute uses negative language to prohibit fur-\\nther action in the event of noncompliance, or (2) the statute is\\ndesigned to protect a right that would generally be injured if\\nthe provision is read as directory. Id.\\n Although Section 14 states a violation notice “shall in-\\nclude” a “specific reference” to the Code section allegedly vi-\\nolated, we see no basis for overturning the presumption that\\nthis requirement is directory rather than mandatory. First,\\nSection 14 contains no negative language prohibiting Lake-\\nmoor from taking further action in the event of noncompli-\\nance.\\n\\fNo. 18-3729 11\\n\\n Second, although the plaintiffs argue their right to be fully\\ninformed of an alleged violation would be injured by a direc-\\ntory reading, this is simply not the case. The plaintiffs suffered\\nno failure of notice caused by the “12-O-03” notation. The no-\\ntice of violation each plaintiff received includes multiple pho-\\ntographs of each plaintiffs’ registered vehicle in the act of en-\\ntering an intersection on a red light, with the license plate vis-\\nible, and describes the photographs as evidencing “a violation\\nof a red light signal and/or law pertaining to ‘Right Turn on\\nRed.’” Each notice also includes the time, date, and location of\\nthe violation. Further, each notice provides detailed infor-\\nmation about the procedures for contesting the violation, the\\ndate by which the fine must be paid or the violation contested,\\nand a full list of possible defenses derived from Section 14.\\n Everything the plaintiffs needed to know to contest the vi-\\nolation was fully and clearly explained in the notice of viola-\\ntion itself. The plaintiffs were not prejudiced by the lack of a\\nproper Code citation. Therefore, the presumption in favor of\\na directory reading has not been overcome.\\n Because we hold the “specific reference” provision is di-\\nrectory rather than mandatory, the plaintiffs’ argument the\\nviolation notices were void ab initio fails as a matter of law,\\nand their unjust enrichment claim falls with it.\\n III. Conclusion\\n The plaintiffs have failed to state a claim either for viola-\\ntion of due process or unjust enrichment. The district court\\nproperly dismissed the case. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the de-\\ncision of the district court.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4422302/\", \"author_raw\": \"Daniel Anthony Manion\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"MANION"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"SYKES"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"BRENNAN"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"MANION\": \", Circuit\", \"SYKES\": \", Circuit\", \"BRENNAN\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645049/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":8,"string":"8"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Brian Knutson v. Village of Lakemoor\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-08-01\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-3729\nBRIAN KNUTSON, et al.,\n Plaintiffs-Appellants,\n v.\n\nVILLAGE OF LAKEMOOR,\n Defendant-Appellee.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\n No. 1:18-cv-01804 — Marvin E. Aspen, Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED APRIL 17, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 1, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before MANION, SYKES, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\n MANION, Circuit Judge. This class action suit challenges the\nred light camera program of the Village of Lakemoor, Illinois.\nThe plaintiffs received violation notices from Lakemoor that\nthey claim are invalid because the notices lack a proper mu-\nnicipal code citation. They also claim Lakemoor denied them\ndue process by limiting the defenses that can be asserted be-\nfore a hearing officer to contest a violation. The district court\ndismissed the case for failure to state a claim. We affirm.\n\f2 No. 18-3729\n\n I. Background\n Describing the plaintiffs’ claims requires reading several\nprovisions of Lakemoor’s Municipal Code of Ordinances (the\n“Code”) together. First, Chapter 1 of the Code outlines the\nCode’s numbering system: “Each section number of this code\nshall consist of two component parts separated by a period,\nthe figure before the period referring to the chapter number\nand the figure after the period referring to the section within\nthe chapter.” Lakemoor Mun. Code § 1.01(C).\n Chapter 41-1/21 of the Code covers traffic violations. It in-\ncorporates by reference the Illinois Vehicle Code (IVC), and\nstates “[t]he section numbers used in the [IVC] shall be iden-\ntical to those section numbers in the Lakemoor Vehicle Code.\nTherefore, an ordinance violation shall be cited as ‘Chapter\n41-1/2,’ followed by the corresponding IVC section number.”\nId. § 41-1/2.01.\n In 2012, Lakemoor enacted an ordinance titled\n“AUTOMATED TRAFFIC LAW ENFORCEMENT\nPROGRAM,” and codified it as Section 14 of Chapter 41-1/2.\nId. § 41-1/2.14. Section 14 authorizes a system of red light cam-\neras located at certain intersections to detect and record red\nlight violations. Id. It states “[i]t shall be a violation of this sec-\ntion for anyone to operate a vehicle in disregard of a traffic\ncontrol device or to turn right on a red light where it is posted\n‘No Turn on Red,’” id. § 41-1/2.14(B), but it also incorporates\nby reference the IVC’s prohibition of the same conduct, id.\n§ 41-1/2.14(C)(1), (C)(4) (citing IVC § 11-306).\n\n\n\n 1\n This chapter is referred to as Chapter 41-1/2 because it falls between\nChapters 41 and 42.\n\fNo. 18-3729 3\n\n When a red light camera captures a vehicle committing a\nred light violation, Section 14 requires a written violation no-\ntice to be issued to the registered owner of the vehicle. Id. § 41-\n1/2.14(C)(4). Section 14 lists the information that the notice\n“shall include,” such as the name and address of the regis-\ntered owner of the vehicle, the location, date, and time of the\nviolation, and, importantly for this appeal, “[t]he violation\ncharged, with specific reference to that section of the Village\nof Lakemoor Municipal Code of Ordinances allegedly vio-\nlated.” Id. § 41-1/2.14(C)(4)(c). The violation notice constitutes\nprima facie evidence of a violation, which can be rebutted by\nseveral enumerated defenses. Id. § 41-1/2.14(C)(6). A recipient\nof a violation notice may request adjudication before a hear-\ning officer, where he may present only the defenses listed in\nSection 14(C)(6). The list of defenses does not include chal-\nlenges to the violation notice’s compliance with Section 14’s\nrequirements. Id.\n In its entirety, Section 14 comprises approximately 42 sub-\nsections and sub-subsections and takes up roughly four full\npages. At the end of Section 14 is the following parenthetical:\n“(Ord. 12-O-03, passed 1-26-2012),” referencing the ordinance\nnumber as it was passed and its date of passage. Lakemoor’s\nonline ordinance compilation includes a cross-reference chart\nthat links Ord. No. 12-O-03 to Section 14.2\n\n\n 2 See Village of Lakemoor, Illinois Code of Ordinances, AM. LEGAL PUBL’G\nCORP., http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Illinois/lakemoor_il/vil\nlageoflakemoorillinoiscodeofordinance?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$\nvid=amlegal:lakemoor_il (last visited Aug. 1, 2019). From this page, the\nentire municipal code is accessible through a navigation panel on the left\nside of the screen, arranged by chapters and sections. At the very bottom\n\f4 No. 18-3729\n\n Each plaintiff received at least one such notice of violation.\nNext to the label “Code Violation and Description,” the no-\ntices include simply the notation “12-O-03.” However, the no-\ntices also include photographs of the violation occurrence and\nstate these photographs depict “a violation of a red light sig-\nnal and/or law pertaining to ‘Right Turn on Red.’” The notices\nfurther provide a complete list of defenses and grounds for\ncontesting the violation as well as instructions for contesting\nthe violation by mail or in person.\n All but one of the named plaintiffs chose to pay the $100\nfine for each violation,3 and none requested a hearing. They\nthen filed suit in federal court, seeking to certify three classes:\n(1) all individuals who received a violation notice from Lake-\nmoor, (2) those who paid the fine, and (3) those who have not\npaid the fine. The plaintiffs alleged Lakemoor deprived them\nof due process under color of state law and sought declaratory\n\n\nof this navigation panel is a link labelled “REFERENCES TO\nORDINANCES” within the expandable folder “PARALLEL\nREFERENCES.” That page includes a chart of all ordinance numbers ar-\nranged in numerical order. For each ordinance number, the chart lists the\ndate on which it was adopted and provides a direct link to the code chap-\nter(s) and section(s) included in that ordinance. For Ordinance No. 12-O-\n03, the provided link leads directly to Section 14, although we note the\nhyperlink text is mislabeled as “§ 4-1/2.14”. Searching for “12-O-03” in the\npage’s search bar does not lead one to the proper chapter, section, or the\nordinance cross-reference chart.\n 3 One outlier plaintiff, Heather Bendl, received multiple violation no-\ntices but did not voluntarily pay the attached fines. Her state income tax\nreturn was garnished for the amount due in February 2018, but she later\nreceived another violation notice in April 2018. The fine for that violation\nremained unpaid at the time of the filing of the amended complaint.\n\fNo. 18-3729 5\n\njudgment. They argued the violation notices were void ab in-\nitio because the notation “12-O-03” does not suffice as a “spe-\ncific reference to that section of the [Code] allegedly violated.”\nInstead, reading Lakemoor Municipal Code §§ 1.01, 41-1/2.01,\nand 41-1/2.14(C)(4)(c) together, they contended the violation\nnotices must contain a citation to Chapter 41-1/2 of the Code\nalong with the section number of the IVC dealing with red\nlight violations (IVC § 11-306(c)). Therefore, the plaintiffs as-\nserted the proper citation is “Lakemoor Mun. Code § 41-\n1/2.11-306(c).” They claimed Lakemoor deprived them of due\nprocess by not including a challenge to the notice’s validity as\nan available defense under Section 14(C)(6). In addition to\ntheir due process claim, the plaintiffs asserted a state law un-\njust enrichment claim based on the same allegations.4\n The district court held the notices were valid because Sec-\ntion 14 incorporates by reference IVC § 11-306(c) and “12-O-\n03” is a parallel session law citation to Section 14 that satisfies\nthe “specific reference” requirement. Moreover, the district\n\n\n 4 The plaintiffs also asserted a due process claim under the Illinois\nConstitution and a claim for injunctive relief as a separate count. The\nplaintiffs abandoned the state constitutional claim at the district court.\nWith respect to injunctive relief, that is a remedy, not a cause of action,\nand thus should not be pleaded as a separate count. See Guardians Ass’n v.\nCivil Serv. Com’n, 463 U.S. 582, 595 (1983) (“Whether a litigant has a cause\nof action ‘is analytically distinct and prior to the question of what relief, if\nany, a litigant may be entitled to receive.”); CustomGuide v. CareerBuilder,\nLLC, 813 F. Supp. 2d 990, 1002 (N.D. Ill. 2011) (“An injunction ‘is an equi-\ntable remedy, not a separate cause of action.’”). The district court properly\ndismissed that count on that basis. Furthermore, because we hold the\nplaintiffs failed to state a claim for violation of due process or unjust en-\nrichment, they are not entitled to injunctive relief.\n\f6 No. 18-3729\n\ncourt held the plaintiffs were not deprived of due process by\nthe limitation of defenses because the defense they sought to\nassert was not viable. The district court dismissed the case.\nThe plaintiffs appeal.\n II. Analysis\n The plaintiffs assert a due process claim under the Four-\nteenth Amendment and a state law unjust enrichment claim\nand seek declaratory judgment.5 We review the district court’s\ndismissal de novo. Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1081\n(7th Cir. 2008). “We may affirm a district court’s dismissal or-\nder on any basis supported by the record.” Craig v. Rich Tp.\nHigh Sch. Dist. 227, 736 F.3d 1110, 1118 (7th Cir. 2013).\n A. Due Process Claim\n The plaintiffs do not invoke the “substantive” due process\ndoctrine. Instead, their claim asserts only that they were not\nafforded the minimum procedural protections guaranteed by\nthe Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.\n In analyzing a procedural due process claim, we follow a\ntwo-step process. First, we determine if the plaintiff has been\ndeprived of a liberty or property interest. Second, we deter-\nmine if the plaintiff was provided constitutionally sufficient\nprocess. Grant v. Trs. of Ind. Univ., 870 F.3d 562, 571 (7th Cir.\n2017). Lakemoor does not dispute the plaintiffs have a pro-\ntected property interest in the $100 they were fined for each\nred light violation. Thus, the only question is what—or how\nmuch—process was due for that deprivation.\n\n\n\n 5 We have supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim pursuant\n\nto 28 U.S.C. § 1367.\n\fNo. 18-3729 7\n\n “The cornerstone of due process is notice and the oppor-\ntunity to be heard ‘at a meaningful time and in a meaningful\nmanner.’” Id. (quoting Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333\n(1976)). In this case, the plaintiffs received both. They received\na written notice of each violation, which included a descrip-\ntion and photograph of the violation as well as the time, date,\nand location where it occurred. They also had an opportunity\nto contest the violation before a hearing officer, and the viola-\ntion notices explained in detail how to request such a hearing.\nDespite this, the plaintiffs argue they were denied a meaning-\nful opportunity for hearing because Section 14 limits the de-\nfenses they can raise before the hearing officer. The limited\ndefenses do not include challenging the violation notice as\nvoid for failure to comply with Section 14’s requirements.\nThis argument is unavailing.\n The requirements of due process are not rigid; rather, due\nprocess “is flexible and requires only ‘such procedural protec-\ntions as the particular situation demands.’” Riano v. McDon-\nald, 833 F.3d 830, 834 (7th Cir. 2016) (quoting Ringquist v.\nHampton, 582 F.2d 1138, 1140 (7th Cir. 1978)). Less process is\ndue where less is at stake. Van Harken v. City of Chicago, 103\nF.3d 1346, 1353 (7th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, we consider three\nfactors when determining what process is due before the gov-\nernment effects a deprivation: (1) the nature of the private in-\nterest at stake, (2) the risk of erroneous deprivation through\nthe procedures used, and (3) the governmental interest.\nMathews, 424 U.S. at 334–35.\n First, the private interest at stake in this case—a $100\nfine—is relatively small. See Van Harken, 103 F.3d at 1353 (find-\ning less process was due where maximum possible penalty\nfor parking violation was “only $100”). We do not pretend a\n\f8 No. 18-3729\n\n$100 fine is of no consequence. However, in the grand scheme\nof deprivations the government can effect, including impris-\nonment or the seizure of highly valuable property, a $100 fine\nis among the less serious sort. Accordingly, this factor sug-\ngests less process was required here.\n Second, Lakemoor’s limitation of defenses does not pre-\nsent a risk of erroneous deprivation. Lakemoor allows alleged\nviolators to contest the violation on various grounds that, if\ntrue, would refute or alleviate culpability. For example, Sec-\ntion 14 allows a recipient of a violation notice to assert, inter\nalia, the following arguments as defenses: the vehicle was\nowned by or leased to another individual at the time of the\nviolation; the driver passed through the red light in order to\nyield to an emergency vehicle; the vehicle cannot be ade-\nquately identified in the photo; or the driver was already is-\nsued a citation for the same violation. Lakemoor Mun. Code\n§ 41-1/2.14(C)(6). By contrast, the plaintiffs’ desired defense\n(namely, the violation notice did not contain a proper citation\nto the Code section allegedly violated) has no bearing on cul-\npability. Preventing alleged violators from asserting this tech-\nnicality as a defense does not present a risk of erroneous dep-\nrivation. Thus, this factor weighs in favor of finding the pro-\ncess provided was constitutionally sufficient.\n Finally, limiting the universe of possible defenses furthers\nthe government’s interest in administrative efficiency. In\nMathews, the Supreme Court noted as relevant the “fiscal and\nadministrative burdens that the additional or substitute pro-\ncedural requirement would entail.” 424 U.S. at 335; see also\nCont’l Training Servs., Inc. v. Cavazos, 893 F.2d 877, 893 (7th Cir.\n1990) (stating the “conservation of resources and administra-\ntive efficiency” are “unquestionably” governmental\n\fNo. 18-3729 9\n\ninterests). Requiring the hearing officer to entertain any de-\nfenses the alleged violator desires to raise, even those with no\nbearing on culpability, would create a greater administrative\nburden and cost for Lakemoor. This factor supports Lake-\nmoor’s choice to limit the possible defenses to those that re-\nfute or alleviate culpability.\n We have previously held a plaintiff is not deprived of a\nmeaningful opportunity to be heard simply because the de-\nfense he wishes to assert is not available to him at the pro-\nvided hearing. Cochran v. Ill. State Toll Highway Auth., 828 F.3d\n597, 601 (7th Cir. 2016). In Cochran, the plaintiff received notice\nof a toll violation and was entitled to request a hearing. How-\never, because the toll violation was a strict liability offense, the\nplaintiff was prevented from presenting a knowledge defense\nat the hearing. He argued that this limitation of his defenses\nrendered the opportunity for hearing meaningless, but we\ndisagreed. “Although the knowledge defense was not availa-\nble, other defenses were. Thus, plaintiff was not precluded\nfrom presenting any defense, and the hearing was not mean-\ningless.” Id.\n Similarly, the fact that the plaintiffs in this case could not\nassert a defense based on the violation notice’s lack of a Code\ncitation does not mean that the hearing—at which they could\nhave raised several other defenses—would have been mean-\ningless. The process that the plaintiffs received was constitu-\ntionally sufficient, and they have, therefore, failed to state a\nfederal due process claim.\n B. Unjust Enrichment Claim\n The plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim is based on the\nsame underlying allegations as the due process claim. They\n\f10 No. 18-3729\n\nassert Lakemoor has been unjustly enriched by receiving pay-\nment of fines to which it was not entitled.\n The plaintiffs argue the violation notices were void ab ini-\ntio because they did not include a proper citation to “that sec-\ntion of the [Code] allegedly violated” as required by Section\n14. See Lakemoor Mun. Code § 41-1/2.14(C)(4)(c). This argu-\nment fails because there is no indication that the “specific ref-\nerence” requirement was intended to be read as a mandatory\nprovision rather than a directory one.\n “A mandatory provision and a directory provision are\nboth couched in obligatory language, but they differ in that\nnoncompliance with a mandatory provision vitiates the gov-\nernmental action, whereas noncompliance with a directory\nprovision has no such effect.” In re M.I., 2011 IL App (1st)\n100865, ¶ 47, 964 N.E.2d 72, 83. Under Illinois law, a proce-\ndural command in a statute is presumed to be directory rather\nthan mandatory. People v. Geiler, 2016 IL 119095, ¶ 18, 57\nN.E.3d 1221, 1224–25. That presumption can be overcome\nonly if (1) the statute uses negative language to prohibit fur-\nther action in the event of noncompliance, or (2) the statute is\ndesigned to protect a right that would generally be injured if\nthe provision is read as directory. Id.\n Although Section 14 states a violation notice “shall in-\nclude” a “specific reference” to the Code section allegedly vi-\nolated, we see no basis for overturning the presumption that\nthis requirement is directory rather than mandatory. First,\nSection 14 contains no negative language prohibiting Lake-\nmoor from taking further action in the event of noncompli-\nance.\n\fNo. 18-3729 11\n\n Second, although the plaintiffs argue their right to be fully\ninformed of an alleged violation would be injured by a direc-\ntory reading, this is simply not the case. The plaintiffs suffered\nno failure of notice caused by the “12-O-03” notation. The no-\ntice of violation each plaintiff received includes multiple pho-\ntographs of each plaintiffs’ registered vehicle in the act of en-\ntering an intersection on a red light, with the license plate vis-\nible, and describes the photographs as evidencing “a violation\nof a red light signal and/or law pertaining to ‘Right Turn on\nRed.’” Each notice also includes the time, date, and location of\nthe violation. Further, each notice provides detailed infor-\nmation about the procedures for contesting the violation, the\ndate by which the fine must be paid or the violation contested,\nand a full list of possible defenses derived from Section 14.\n Everything the plaintiffs needed to know to contest the vi-\nolation was fully and clearly explained in the notice of viola-\ntion itself. The plaintiffs were not prejudiced by the lack of a\nproper Code citation. Therefore, the presumption in favor of\na directory reading has not been overcome.\n Because we hold the “specific reference” provision is di-\nrectory rather than mandatory, the plaintiffs’ argument the\nviolation notices were void ab initio fails as a matter of law,\nand their unjust enrichment claim falls with it.\n III. Conclusion\n The plaintiffs have failed to state a claim either for viola-\ntion of due process or unjust enrichment. The district court\nproperly dismissed the case. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the de-\ncision of the district court.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Brian Knutson v. Village of Lakemoor\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-08-01\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-3729\\nBRIAN KNUTSON, et al.,\\n Plaintiffs-Appellants,\\n v.\\n\\nVILLAGE OF LAKEMOOR,\\n Defendant-Appellee.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 1:18-cv-01804 — Marvin E. Aspen, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED APRIL 17, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 1, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before MANION, SYKES, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\\n MANION, Circuit Judge. This class action suit challenges the\\nred light camera program of the Village of Lakemoor, Illinois.\\nThe plaintiffs received violation notices from Lakemoor that\\nthey claim are invalid because the notices lack a proper mu-\\nnicipal code citation. They also claim Lakemoor denied them\\ndue process by limiting the defenses that can be asserted be-\\nfore a hearing officer to contest a violation. The district court\\ndismissed the case for failure to state a claim. We affirm.\\n\\f2 No. 18-3729\\n\\n I. Background\\n Describing the plaintiffs’ claims requires reading several\\nprovisions of Lakemoor’s Municipal Code of Ordinances (the\\n“Code”) together. First, Chapter 1 of the Code outlines the\\nCode’s numbering system: “Each section number of this code\\nshall consist of two component parts separated by a period,\\nthe figure before the period referring to the chapter number\\nand the figure after the period referring to the section within\\nthe chapter.” Lakemoor Mun. Code § 1.01(C).\\n Chapter 41-1/21 of the Code covers traffic violations. It in-\\ncorporates by reference the Illinois Vehicle Code (IVC), and\\nstates “[t]he section numbers used in the [IVC] shall be iden-\\ntical to those section numbers in the Lakemoor Vehicle Code.\\nTherefore, an ordinance violation shall be cited as ‘Chapter\\n41-1/2,’ followed by the corresponding IVC section number.”\\nId. § 41-1/2.01.\\n In 2012, Lakemoor enacted an ordinance titled\\n“AUTOMATED TRAFFIC LAW ENFORCEMENT\\nPROGRAM,” and codified it as Section 14 of Chapter 41-1/2.\\nId. § 41-1/2.14. Section 14 authorizes a system of red light cam-\\neras located at certain intersections to detect and record red\\nlight violations. Id. It states “[i]t shall be a violation of this sec-\\ntion for anyone to operate a vehicle in disregard of a traffic\\ncontrol device or to turn right on a red light where it is posted\\n‘No Turn on Red,’” id. § 41-1/2.14(B), but it also incorporates\\nby reference the IVC’s prohibition of the same conduct, id.\\n§ 41-1/2.14(C)(1), (C)(4) (citing IVC § 11-306).\\n\\n\\n\\n 1\\n This chapter is referred to as Chapter 41-1/2 because it falls between\\nChapters 41 and 42.\\n\\fNo. 18-3729 3\\n\\n When a red light camera captures a vehicle committing a\\nred light violation, Section 14 requires a written violation no-\\ntice to be issued to the registered owner of the vehicle. Id. § 41-\\n1/2.14(C)(4). Section 14 lists the information that the notice\\n“shall include,” such as the name and address of the regis-\\ntered owner of the vehicle, the location, date, and time of the\\nviolation, and, importantly for this appeal, “[t]he violation\\ncharged, with specific reference to that section of the Village\\nof Lakemoor Municipal Code of Ordinances allegedly vio-\\nlated.” Id. § 41-1/2.14(C)(4)(c). The violation notice constitutes\\nprima facie evidence of a violation, which can be rebutted by\\nseveral enumerated defenses. Id. § 41-1/2.14(C)(6). A recipient\\nof a violation notice may request adjudication before a hear-\\ning officer, where he may present only the defenses listed in\\nSection 14(C)(6). The list of defenses does not include chal-\\nlenges to the violation notice’s compliance with Section 14’s\\nrequirements. Id.\\n In its entirety, Section 14 comprises approximately 42 sub-\\nsections and sub-subsections and takes up roughly four full\\npages. At the end of Section 14 is the following parenthetical:\\n“(Ord. 12-O-03, passed 1-26-2012),” referencing the ordinance\\nnumber as it was passed and its date of passage. Lakemoor’s\\nonline ordinance compilation includes a cross-reference chart\\nthat links Ord. No. 12-O-03 to Section 14.2\\n\\n\\n 2 See Village of Lakemoor, Illinois Code of Ordinances, AM. LEGAL PUBL’G\\nCORP., http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Illinois/lakemoor_il/vil\\nlageoflakemoorillinoiscodeofordinance?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$\\nvid=amlegal:lakemoor_il (last visited Aug. 1, 2019). From this page, the\\nentire municipal code is accessible through a navigation panel on the left\\nside of the screen, arranged by chapters and sections. At the very bottom\\n\\f4 No. 18-3729\\n\\n Each plaintiff received at least one such notice of violation.\\nNext to the label “Code Violation and Description,” the no-\\ntices include simply the notation “12-O-03.” However, the no-\\ntices also include photographs of the violation occurrence and\\nstate these photographs depict “a violation of a red light sig-\\nnal and/or law pertaining to ‘Right Turn on Red.’” The notices\\nfurther provide a complete list of defenses and grounds for\\ncontesting the violation as well as instructions for contesting\\nthe violation by mail or in person.\\n All but one of the named plaintiffs chose to pay the $100\\nfine for each violation,3 and none requested a hearing. They\\nthen filed suit in federal court, seeking to certify three classes:\\n(1) all individuals who received a violation notice from Lake-\\nmoor, (2) those who paid the fine, and (3) those who have not\\npaid the fine. The plaintiffs alleged Lakemoor deprived them\\nof due process under color of state law and sought declaratory\\n\\n\\nof this navigation panel is a link labelled “REFERENCES TO\\nORDINANCES” within the expandable folder “PARALLEL\\nREFERENCES.” That page includes a chart of all ordinance numbers ar-\\nranged in numerical order. For each ordinance number, the chart lists the\\ndate on which it was adopted and provides a direct link to the code chap-\\nter(s) and section(s) included in that ordinance. For Ordinance No. 12-O-\\n03, the provided link leads directly to Section 14, although we note the\\nhyperlink text is mislabeled as “§ 4-1/2.14”. Searching for “12-O-03” in the\\npage’s search bar does not lead one to the proper chapter, section, or the\\nordinance cross-reference chart.\\n 3 One outlier plaintiff, Heather Bendl, received multiple violation no-\\ntices but did not voluntarily pay the attached fines. Her state income tax\\nreturn was garnished for the amount due in February 2018, but she later\\nreceived another violation notice in April 2018. The fine for that violation\\nremained unpaid at the time of the filing of the amended complaint.\\n\\fNo. 18-3729 5\\n\\njudgment. They argued the violation notices were void ab in-\\nitio because the notation “12-O-03” does not suffice as a “spe-\\ncific reference to that section of the [Code] allegedly violated.”\\nInstead, reading Lakemoor Municipal Code §§ 1.01, 41-1/2.01,\\nand 41-1/2.14(C)(4)(c) together, they contended the violation\\nnotices must contain a citation to Chapter 41-1/2 of the Code\\nalong with the section number of the IVC dealing with red\\nlight violations (IVC § 11-306(c)). Therefore, the plaintiffs as-\\nserted the proper citation is “Lakemoor Mun. Code § 41-\\n1/2.11-306(c).” They claimed Lakemoor deprived them of due\\nprocess by not including a challenge to the notice’s validity as\\nan available defense under Section 14(C)(6). In addition to\\ntheir due process claim, the plaintiffs asserted a state law un-\\njust enrichment claim based on the same allegations.4\\n The district court held the notices were valid because Sec-\\ntion 14 incorporates by reference IVC § 11-306(c) and “12-O-\\n03” is a parallel session law citation to Section 14 that satisfies\\nthe “specific reference” requirement. Moreover, the district\\n\\n\\n 4 The plaintiffs also asserted a due process claim under the Illinois\\nConstitution and a claim for injunctive relief as a separate count. The\\nplaintiffs abandoned the state constitutional claim at the district court.\\nWith respect to injunctive relief, that is a remedy, not a cause of action,\\nand thus should not be pleaded as a separate count. See Guardians Ass’n v.\\nCivil Serv. Com’n, 463 U.S. 582, 595 (1983) (“Whether a litigant has a cause\\nof action ‘is analytically distinct and prior to the question of what relief, if\\nany, a litigant may be entitled to receive.”); CustomGuide v. CareerBuilder,\\nLLC, 813 F. Supp. 2d 990, 1002 (N.D. Ill. 2011) (“An injunction ‘is an equi-\\ntable remedy, not a separate cause of action.’”). The district court properly\\ndismissed that count on that basis. Furthermore, because we hold the\\nplaintiffs failed to state a claim for violation of due process or unjust en-\\nrichment, they are not entitled to injunctive relief.\\n\\f6 No. 18-3729\\n\\ncourt held the plaintiffs were not deprived of due process by\\nthe limitation of defenses because the defense they sought to\\nassert was not viable. The district court dismissed the case.\\nThe plaintiffs appeal.\\n II. Analysis\\n The plaintiffs assert a due process claim under the Four-\\nteenth Amendment and a state law unjust enrichment claim\\nand seek declaratory judgment.5 We review the district court’s\\ndismissal de novo. Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1081\\n(7th Cir. 2008). “We may affirm a district court’s dismissal or-\\nder on any basis supported by the record.” Craig v. Rich Tp.\\nHigh Sch. Dist. 227, 736 F.3d 1110, 1118 (7th Cir. 2013).\\n A. Due Process Claim\\n The plaintiffs do not invoke the “substantive” due process\\ndoctrine. Instead, their claim asserts only that they were not\\nafforded the minimum procedural protections guaranteed by\\nthe Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.\\n In analyzing a procedural due process claim, we follow a\\ntwo-step process. First, we determine if the plaintiff has been\\ndeprived of a liberty or property interest. Second, we deter-\\nmine if the plaintiff was provided constitutionally sufficient\\nprocess. Grant v. Trs. of Ind. Univ., 870 F.3d 562, 571 (7th Cir.\\n2017). Lakemoor does not dispute the plaintiffs have a pro-\\ntected property interest in the $100 they were fined for each\\nred light violation. Thus, the only question is what—or how\\nmuch—process was due for that deprivation.\\n\\n\\n\\n 5 We have supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim pursuant\\n\\nto 28 U.S.C. § 1367.\\n\\fNo. 18-3729 7\\n\\n “The cornerstone of due process is notice and the oppor-\\ntunity to be heard ‘at a meaningful time and in a meaningful\\nmanner.’” Id. (quoting Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333\\n(1976)). In this case, the plaintiffs received both. They received\\na written notice of each violation, which included a descrip-\\ntion and photograph of the violation as well as the time, date,\\nand location where it occurred. They also had an opportunity\\nto contest the violation before a hearing officer, and the viola-\\ntion notices explained in detail how to request such a hearing.\\nDespite this, the plaintiffs argue they were denied a meaning-\\nful opportunity for hearing because Section 14 limits the de-\\nfenses they can raise before the hearing officer. The limited\\ndefenses do not include challenging the violation notice as\\nvoid for failure to comply with Section 14’s requirements.\\nThis argument is unavailing.\\n The requirements of due process are not rigid; rather, due\\nprocess “is flexible and requires only ‘such procedural protec-\\ntions as the particular situation demands.’” Riano v. McDon-\\nald, 833 F.3d 830, 834 (7th Cir. 2016) (quoting Ringquist v.\\nHampton, 582 F.2d 1138, 1140 (7th Cir. 1978)). Less process is\\ndue where less is at stake. Van Harken v. City of Chicago, 103\\nF.3d 1346, 1353 (7th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, we consider three\\nfactors when determining what process is due before the gov-\\nernment effects a deprivation: (1) the nature of the private in-\\nterest at stake, (2) the risk of erroneous deprivation through\\nthe procedures used, and (3) the governmental interest.\\nMathews, 424 U.S. at 334–35.\\n First, the private interest at stake in this case—a $100\\nfine—is relatively small. See Van Harken, 103 F.3d at 1353 (find-\\ning less process was due where maximum possible penalty\\nfor parking violation was “only $100”). We do not pretend a\\n\\f8 No. 18-3729\\n\\n$100 fine is of no consequence. However, in the grand scheme\\nof deprivations the government can effect, including impris-\\nonment or the seizure of highly valuable property, a $100 fine\\nis among the less serious sort. Accordingly, this factor sug-\\ngests less process was required here.\\n Second, Lakemoor’s limitation of defenses does not pre-\\nsent a risk of erroneous deprivation. Lakemoor allows alleged\\nviolators to contest the violation on various grounds that, if\\ntrue, would refute or alleviate culpability. For example, Sec-\\ntion 14 allows a recipient of a violation notice to assert, inter\\nalia, the following arguments as defenses: the vehicle was\\nowned by or leased to another individual at the time of the\\nviolation; the driver passed through the red light in order to\\nyield to an emergency vehicle; the vehicle cannot be ade-\\nquately identified in the photo; or the driver was already is-\\nsued a citation for the same violation. Lakemoor Mun. Code\\n§ 41-1/2.14(C)(6). By contrast, the plaintiffs’ desired defense\\n(namely, the violation notice did not contain a proper citation\\nto the Code section allegedly violated) has no bearing on cul-\\npability. Preventing alleged violators from asserting this tech-\\nnicality as a defense does not present a risk of erroneous dep-\\nrivation. Thus, this factor weighs in favor of finding the pro-\\ncess provided was constitutionally sufficient.\\n Finally, limiting the universe of possible defenses furthers\\nthe government’s interest in administrative efficiency. In\\nMathews, the Supreme Court noted as relevant the “fiscal and\\nadministrative burdens that the additional or substitute pro-\\ncedural requirement would entail.” 424 U.S. at 335; see also\\nCont’l Training Servs., Inc. v. Cavazos, 893 F.2d 877, 893 (7th Cir.\\n1990) (stating the “conservation of resources and administra-\\ntive efficiency” are “unquestionably” governmental\\n\\fNo. 18-3729 9\\n\\ninterests). Requiring the hearing officer to entertain any de-\\nfenses the alleged violator desires to raise, even those with no\\nbearing on culpability, would create a greater administrative\\nburden and cost for Lakemoor. This factor supports Lake-\\nmoor’s choice to limit the possible defenses to those that re-\\nfute or alleviate culpability.\\n We have previously held a plaintiff is not deprived of a\\nmeaningful opportunity to be heard simply because the de-\\nfense he wishes to assert is not available to him at the pro-\\nvided hearing. Cochran v. Ill. State Toll Highway Auth., 828 F.3d\\n597, 601 (7th Cir. 2016). In Cochran, the plaintiff received notice\\nof a toll violation and was entitled to request a hearing. How-\\never, because the toll violation was a strict liability offense, the\\nplaintiff was prevented from presenting a knowledge defense\\nat the hearing. He argued that this limitation of his defenses\\nrendered the opportunity for hearing meaningless, but we\\ndisagreed. “Although the knowledge defense was not availa-\\nble, other defenses were. Thus, plaintiff was not precluded\\nfrom presenting any defense, and the hearing was not mean-\\ningless.” Id.\\n Similarly, the fact that the plaintiffs in this case could not\\nassert a defense based on the violation notice’s lack of a Code\\ncitation does not mean that the hearing—at which they could\\nhave raised several other defenses—would have been mean-\\ningless. The process that the plaintiffs received was constitu-\\ntionally sufficient, and they have, therefore, failed to state a\\nfederal due process claim.\\n B. Unjust Enrichment Claim\\n The plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim is based on the\\nsame underlying allegations as the due process claim. They\\n\\f10 No. 18-3729\\n\\nassert Lakemoor has been unjustly enriched by receiving pay-\\nment of fines to which it was not entitled.\\n The plaintiffs argue the violation notices were void ab ini-\\ntio because they did not include a proper citation to “that sec-\\ntion of the [Code] allegedly violated” as required by Section\\n14. See Lakemoor Mun. Code § 41-1/2.14(C)(4)(c). This argu-\\nment fails because there is no indication that the “specific ref-\\nerence” requirement was intended to be read as a mandatory\\nprovision rather than a directory one.\\n “A mandatory provision and a directory provision are\\nboth couched in obligatory language, but they differ in that\\nnoncompliance with a mandatory provision vitiates the gov-\\nernmental action, whereas noncompliance with a directory\\nprovision has no such effect.” In re M.I., 2011 IL App (1st)\\n100865, ¶ 47, 964 N.E.2d 72, 83. Under Illinois law, a proce-\\ndural command in a statute is presumed to be directory rather\\nthan mandatory. People v. Geiler, 2016 IL 119095, ¶ 18, 57\\nN.E.3d 1221, 1224–25. That presumption can be overcome\\nonly if (1) the statute uses negative language to prohibit fur-\\nther action in the event of noncompliance, or (2) the statute is\\ndesigned to protect a right that would generally be injured if\\nthe provision is read as directory. Id.\\n Although Section 14 states a violation notice “shall in-\\nclude” a “specific reference” to the Code section allegedly vi-\\nolated, we see no basis for overturning the presumption that\\nthis requirement is directory rather than mandatory. First,\\nSection 14 contains no negative language prohibiting Lake-\\nmoor from taking further action in the event of noncompli-\\nance.\\n\\fNo. 18-3729 11\\n\\n Second, although the plaintiffs argue their right to be fully\\ninformed of an alleged violation would be injured by a direc-\\ntory reading, this is simply not the case. The plaintiffs suffered\\nno failure of notice caused by the “12-O-03” notation. The no-\\ntice of violation each plaintiff received includes multiple pho-\\ntographs of each plaintiffs’ registered vehicle in the act of en-\\ntering an intersection on a red light, with the license plate vis-\\nible, and describes the photographs as evidencing “a violation\\nof a red light signal and/or law pertaining to ‘Right Turn on\\nRed.’” Each notice also includes the time, date, and location of\\nthe violation. Further, each notice provides detailed infor-\\nmation about the procedures for contesting the violation, the\\ndate by which the fine must be paid or the violation contested,\\nand a full list of possible defenses derived from Section 14.\\n Everything the plaintiffs needed to know to contest the vi-\\nolation was fully and clearly explained in the notice of viola-\\ntion itself. The plaintiffs were not prejudiced by the lack of a\\nproper Code citation. Therefore, the presumption in favor of\\na directory reading has not been overcome.\\n Because we hold the “specific reference” provision is di-\\nrectory rather than mandatory, the plaintiffs’ argument the\\nviolation notices were void ab initio fails as a matter of law,\\nand their unjust enrichment claim falls with it.\\n III. Conclusion\\n The plaintiffs have failed to state a claim either for viola-\\ntion of due process or unjust enrichment. The district court\\nproperly dismissed the case. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the de-\\ncision of the district court.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3772,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4645118,"string":"4,645,118"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Steven Lisle, Jr. v. William Welborn"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-08-01"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-1595"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before HAMILTON, BARRETT, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"David Frank Hamilton\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-1595\\nSTEVEN D. LISLE, JR.,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n v.\\n\\nWILLIAM WELBORN, et al.,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Southern District of Illinois.\\n No. 3:15-CV-00965 — Michael J. Reagan, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED MARCH 29, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 1, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before HAMILTON, BARRETT, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.\\n HAMILTON, Circuit Judge. This appeal presents issues stem-\\nming from a prison’s discipline of a prisoner and his later su-\\nicide attempts. The story began in 2014 when correctional of-\\nficers at the Menard Correctional Facility found contraband\\nalcohol in the cell of plaintiff Steven D. Lisle, Jr. Lisle’s cell-\\nmate at first took responsibility for the contraband but later\\nrecanted outside of Lisle’s presence. He said instead that Lisle\\nhad been abusing him and had forced him to take the blame\\n\\f2 No. 18-1595\\n\\nfor the alcohol. In disciplinary proceedings, Lisle later asked\\nto call a witness to testify about his cellmate’s initial admis-\\nsions. His requests were ignored. Lisle, who is black, was sen-\\ntenced to four months in disciplinary segregation. His cell-\\nmate, who was white, was not disciplined.\\n While in segregation, Lisle attempted to commit suicide\\nthree times. His third attempt was nearly successful, and he\\nwas placed on suicide watch in the prison infirmary. While\\nthere, Lisle claims, a nurse taunted him for his failed suicide\\nattempts and encouraged him to try again. Lisle filed this suit\\nalleging that he was punished based on his race, that he was\\ndeprived of liberty without due process of law, and that the\\nprison staff’s conduct in the wake of his mental health crisis—\\nincluding the nurse’s statements—amounted to cruel and un-\\nusual punishment.\\n The district court granted summary judgment on several\\nclaims but held a jury trial on Lisle’s claims for deliberate in-\\ndifference to a serious medical need. During jury selection,\\ndefense lawyers used peremptory strikes to remove three of\\nthe four black potential jurors. After the jury was selected, but\\nbefore it was sworn and the venire released, Lisle’s counsel\\nobjected pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986),\\nchallenging the use of peremptory strikes against the black\\njurors. The judge denied the objection as untimely.\\n Lisle appeals the summary judgment decision and seeks a\\nnew trial based on his Batson claim. We agree that his Batson\\nclaim was timely, and we cannot find that the erroneous de-\\nnial was harmless. We remand for an evidentiary hearing on\\nthe Batson claim and, if necessary, a new trial on all claims that\\nwere tried. We also reverse summary judgment for the nurse\\n\\fNo. 18-1595 3\\n\\non the taunting claim. We affirm all other aspects of the judg-\\nment.\\nI. Factual & Procedural Background\\n A. Cell Search & Disciplinary Proceeding\\n To the extent we review the partial grant of summary\\njudgment, we review the facts in the light most favorable to\\nLisle as the non-moving party, giving him the benefit of con-\\nflicts in the evidence. Spaine v. Community Contacts, Inc., 756\\nF.3d 542, 544 (7th Cir. 2014). Steven D. Lisle, Jr. was an inmate\\nat the Menard Correctional Center in Illinois, where he shared\\na cell with another inmate. On August 12, 2014, when Lisle\\nwas at the prison gym, correctional officers searched his cell\\nand found contraband: a trash bag of liquid that contained 7%\\nalcohol. Two correctional officers took Lisle to segregation to\\nawait a disciplinary hearing.\\n On the way to the segregation unit, he crossed paths with\\nhis cellmate, who had also been at the gym when the search\\noccurred. Lisle asked his cellmate if he was going to “take his\\nweight” (claim responsibility) for the contraband. The cell-\\nmate said yes and told Lisle that he had “already told them\\nwhatever they found” in the cell was his. Lieutenant Michael\\nSamuel was within earshot of this conversation. Lisle told\\nLieutenant Samuel that he was going to call him as a witness\\nat his disciplinary hearing. Samuel told Lisle he would testify.\\n Outside of Lisle’s presence, though, his cellmate later re-\\ncanted. He said he had claimed the alcohol was his only be-\\ncause Lisle had put him “through some serious hell.” The cell-\\nmate revealed extensive bruising all over his body that he\\nclaimed was the result of Lisle’s physical and sexual abuse.\\nHe expressed fear for his life. The cellmate was placed in\\n\\f4 No. 18-1595\\n\\nprotective custody and a rape kit was used to test him. He was\\nnever placed in segregation, and the Adjustment Committee\\nfound him not guilty for the contraband. Lieutenant Brook-\\nman testified in this case that Lisle was not informed of the\\nallegations his cellmate made because disclosing to an alleged\\nabuser that his victim has reported the abuse is “what gets\\npeople hurt in prison.”\\n Once Lisle was placed in segregation, a correctional officer\\nprovided him with a copy of the disciplinary report outlining\\nthe charged violations. Lisle asked for a pen so that he could\\nsign the report and ask to have Lieutenant Samuel testify at\\nthe disciplinary hearing. The officer refused, so Lisle made an\\noral request that Samuel be called to testify. The next day,\\nLisle met with his counselor and again made an oral request\\nto call Lieutenant Samuel as a witness. His counselor for-\\nwarded the request to Internal Affairs, which in turn faxed the\\nrequest to the Adjustment Committee.\\n Two days after the search, the disciplinary hearing was\\nheld before the Adjustment Committee comprised of Lieuten-\\nant Kent Brookman and another official whom Lisle has not\\nsued. Lieutenant Samuel did not attend the disciplinary hear-\\ning. Brookman indicated he had already spoken with Samuel\\nand would do so again. 1\\n The Adjustment Committee found Lisle guilty and sen-\\ntenced him to four months of disciplinary segregation and\\nfour months of reduced privileges, such as commissary re-\\nstrictions, and six months of contact visit restriction. Despite\\nLisle’s request that Samuel testify at least three times, the\\n\\n 1 It is not clear from the record whether Brookman actually spoke with\\n\\nSamuel or not. For purposes of summary judgment, we assume he did not.\\n\\fNo. 18-1595 5\\n\\nAdjustment Committee’s final report indicated that he had\\nnot requested a witness.\\n B. Lisle’s Mental Health Crisis\\n While in segregation, Lisle attempted to commit suicide\\nwith a makeshift rope three times over the course of three\\ndays. He claimed that being denied the chance to present a\\nwitness at his hearing and the slow response to the post-hear-\\ning grievances he filed caused him to become depressed. He\\nrepeatedly asked for a mental health and crisis team but did\\nnot receive intervening assistance before his third suicide at-\\ntempt.\\n Lisle described his segregation cell as being poorly venti-\\nlated, with rusty bars and with corroded feces in the toilet. He\\nwas not given a brush to clean the toilet, and he had access to\\nfewer cleaning supplies due to his loss of commissary privi-\\nleges. He also had fewer privileges than when he was in gen-\\neral population, such as loss of access to the gym and fewer\\nopportunities to go outside or shower. He had a cellmate\\nthroughout his entire stay in “segregation.”\\n Lisle described his first two suicide attempts in a deposi-\\ntion taken April 25, 2017. He said his first suicide attempt on\\nSeptember 3, 2014 failed when the makeshift rope he tied\\naround his neck snapped under his weight. Lisle alleges Lieu-\\ntenant Welborn and Nurse Reeves witnessed the attempt.\\nLisle claims he informed them he was attempting to kill him-\\nself and handed Reeves a suicide note. According to Lisle,\\nthey both walked away without a word.\\n The next day, Lisle again attempted suicide unsuccess-\\nfully, this time, he says, in the presence of correctional officer\\nChristopher McClure and another nurse, Jodi Hormann. Lisle\\n\\f6 No. 18-1595\\n\\nagain claims he handed the nurse a suicide note and told them\\nboth that he intended to kill himself. In a repeat of the day\\nbefore, Lisle says, the two prison staff members simply\\nwalked away. Before Lisle attempted suicide a third time, he\\ngave another officer, Cale Young, a third suicide note and in-\\nformed the officer that he was going to attempt suicide again.\\nAccording to Lisle, Young put the note in his pocket and\\nwalked away.\\n The night of September 5, 2014, Lisle attempted to commit\\nsuicide a third time while his cellmate was asleep. This time,\\na correctional officer and a medical staff member saw him\\nhanging in his cell and yelled for his cellmate to help. His cell-\\nmate helped the officers support Lisle by his legs to give the\\nofficers time to remove the rope from his neck. Lisle was taken\\nto the infirmary, where the medical staff noted he had injuries\\non his neck that appeared several days old, consistent with\\nprior suicide attempts. He remained in the infirmary and was\\nplaced on suicide watch.\\n On the instructions of the medical director, Lisle was\\nplaced on “strip cell suicide watch,” which meant he was not\\nprovided a mattress and could use only a suicide-resistant\\nblanket. He was also checked every ten minutes, with vital\\nsigns checked every two hours. Jana South was a nurse work-\\ning in the infirmary when Lisle was admitted. Lisle testified\\nthat when Nurse South evaluated him a few hours later, she\\nrepeatedly mocked him for failing to kill himself. She la-\\nmented that Lisle had not succeeded in his suicide attempts,\\ntold him he should have done it “properly,” and said he\\nshould “do a better job next time.” Later, Lisle also com-\\nplained that his back hurt from sleeping on the steel slab with-\\nout a mattress and requested a blanket because his cell was\\n\\fNo. 18-1595 7\\n\\ntoo cold. South taunted him, saying that if he wanted a mat-\\ntress, he should not be on suicide watch and that he should\\nnot care about being cold or uncomfortable since he was try-\\ning to kill himself. South denied making any of these state-\\nments.\\n Despite the dispute about what Nurse South said, it is un-\\ndisputed that she continued to provide care to Lisle. She eval-\\nuated him several times, took his vital signs, and conducted\\nat least one neurological examination. After her first evalua-\\ntion of Lisle, South also called a mental health physician to\\nevaluate Lisle, which occurred the next morning. Lisle re-\\nmained in the infirmary for six days.\\n C. Partial Summary Judgment and Trial\\n Lisle sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, bringing five counts\\nagainst fourteen prison staff members. First, he claimed Lieu-\\ntenant Brookman, as chair of the Adjustment Committee, de-\\nprived him of a protected liberty interest without due process\\nof law when he failed to call Lieutenant Samuel to testify.\\nLisle also alleged that Lieutenants Samuel and Brookman and\\nthe second officer who brought Lisle to segregation discrimi-\\nnated against him based on his race. Count III alleged an\\nEighth Amendment claim against Reeves, Welborn, Hor-\\nmann, McClure, Young, and South, for their failure to obtain\\nmedical help for Lisle when he was suicidal, and for Nurse\\nSouth’s verbal abuse of Lisle when he was on suicide watch.\\nHe also sued Nurse South based on his experiences in the in-\\nfirmary and her alleged refusal to call a doctor when he re-\\nquested one. Finally, he alleged that several prison officials\\nviolated his constitutional rights in their handling of multiple\\ngrievances he had filed.\\n\\f8 No. 18-1595\\n\\n The defendants moved for summary judgment. The dis-\\ntrict court granted the motion in part on the due process claim\\nbecause Lisle failed to show that confinement in segregation\\ndeprived him of a protected liberty interest. The district court\\nalso granted summary judgment for the equal protection de-\\nfendants, finding no evidence of racial motive in any defend-\\nant’s actions.\\n The district court dismissed the deliberate indifference\\nclaim against Nurse South for her conduct in the infirmary.\\nThe district court reasoned that under DeWalt v. Carter, 224\\nF.3d 607, 612 (7th Cir. 2000), the alleged taunting would be\\n“reprehensible,” but would amount only to “simple verbal\\nharassment,” which would not amount to cruel and unusual\\npunishment. The court explained: “though South may have\\nmade statements suggesting Plaintiff kill himself, she none-\\ntheless did her job and treated Plaintiff. Defendant South\\ntherefore did not exhibit deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s\\nrisk of suicide.” The court denied summary judgment on the\\nclaims of deliberate indifference against the prison staff mem-\\nbers for their alleged failure to act when Lisle was suicidal.\\n The court granted summary judgment dismissing most of\\nLisle’s conditions-of-confinement claims, but the court denied\\nsummary judgment on his claim that Nurse South refused to\\ncall a doctor. Finally, the court dismissed the claims against\\nvarious prison officials for their failure to act on the griev-\\nances he submitted because Lisle failed to provide sufficient\\nevidence to support these claims.\\n The surviving claims were tried to a jury. During voir dire,\\nonly four African-American veniremen were called. The two\\nteams of defense counsel used three of their six peremptory\\nstrikes against black panel members. Just after the jurors were\\n\\fNo. 18-1595 9\\n\\nselected, but before they were sworn and the venire released,\\nLisle’s attorney objected pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky, 476\\nU.S. 79 (1986), that those three strikes were racially motivated.\\nThe district court denied Lisle’s objection as untimely. The\\ncourt told Lisle he “should have made [the objections] while\\nwe were doing it. I think you waived at this juncture. We can\\nmake a record. I know we do have an African American on\\nthe jury.”\\n The court then addressed defense counsel, explaining that\\nif they wanted “to make a responseY I am happy to listen to\\nrace neutral responsesY. It is probably a good opportunity for\\nyou to respond if you have a race neutral response you want\\nto give or you don’t have to respond at all.” Counsel for the\\nmedical defendants briefly explained that they struck two\\nblack jurors who had close family members who had been in-\\ncarcerated. Counsel doubted those jurors’ abilities to be fair\\nto the defendants in this case, despite the jurors’ assertions\\nthat the family members’ experiences would not affect their\\ndecision. The judge said that the reasons proffered were race\\nneutral, but he did not make any express finding that he be-\\nlieved the offered reasons were honest.\\n After a three-day trial, a jury found for Lisle on the claim\\nthat Reeves, Welborn, Hormann, and McClure were deliber-\\nately indifferent to his suicide attempts, but the jury awarded\\nhim only $300 in compensatory damages. The jury found in\\nfavor of Nurse South on the claim that she denied Lisle a phy-\\nsician. The jury also found for Young on the claim of deliber-\\nate indifference to Lisle’s suicide attempt and for Hill on the\\nclaim that she was deliberately indifferent to a serious risk of\\nharm to Lisle by ignoring his grievances.\\n\\f10 No. 18-1595\\n\\n On appeal, Lisle argues that his Batson challenge was\\ntimely and that summary judgment for the defendants was\\nimproper on some claims: whether South’s comments vio-\\nlated the Eighth Amendment, whether Lieutenants Brookman\\nand Samuel violated the Equal Protection Clause, and\\nwhether Brookman deprived him of liberty without due pro-\\ncess when he refused to call Samuel as a witness.\\nII. Analysis\\n We begin with the district court’s ruling on the Batson chal-\\nlenge before analyzing its decisions to grant summary judg-\\nment on the Eighth Amendment, equal protection, and due\\nprocess claims.\\n A. Batson Challenge\\n In Batson v. Kentucky, the Supreme Court held that “the\\nState denies a black defendant equal protection of the laws\\nwhen it puts him on trial before a jury from which members\\nof his race have been purposefully excluded.” 476 U.S. 79, 85\\n(1986). Batson has been extended to civil cases, so peremptory\\nstrikes simply may not be used on account of race. Foster v.\\nChatman, 136 S. Ct. 1737, 1747 (2016) (“The ‘Constitution for-\\nbids striking even a single prospective juror for a discrimina-\\ntory purpose.’”), quoting Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472, 478\\n(2008); Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., 500 U.S. 614, 631\\n(1991) (Batson applies to civil cases).\\n A Batson claim is analyzed in a three-step process in the\\ntrial court. First, if a party suspects peremptory strikes are be-\\ning used for discriminatory reasons, he must object and make\\na prima facie case of racial discrimination. “[T]he burden at\\nthe prima facie stage is low, requiring only circumstances rais-\\ning a suspicion that discrimination occurred, even where\\n\\fNo. 18-1595 11\\n\\nthose circumstances are insufficient to indicate that it is more\\nlikely than not that the challenges were used to discriminate.”\\nUnited States v. Stephens, 421 F.3d 503, 512 (7th Cir. 2005). Sec-\\nond, if the court finds the party has made a prima facie show-\\ning of discrimination, the burden shifts to the striking party\\nto provide a race-neutral reason for the strike. Flowers v. Mis-\\nsissippi, 139 S. Ct. 2228, 2241 (2019). Third, the trial judge must\\nthen “determine whether the Y stated reasons were the actual\\nreasons or instead were a pretext for discrimination.” Id.\\n The district court rejected Lisle’s Batson challenge as un-\\ntimely. Trial judges have considerable flexibility and discre-\\ntion in managing jury selection, including how they provide\\na reasonable opportunity to raise Batson challenges. A reason-\\nable opportunity to raise a Batson challenge is essential. This\\nBatson challenge was not untimely. We have said that “[c]on-\\ntemporaneous objection is imperative with respect to Batson\\nclaims,” United States v. Chandler, 12 F.3d 1427, 1431 (7th Cir.\\n1994), but contemporaneous does not mean instantaneous.\\nRather, “the dismissal of the venire or the swearing of the jury\\nis the presumptive deadline for making Batson challenges.”\\nUnited States v. Williams, 819 F.3d 1026, 1029 (7th Cir. 2016).\\n Lisle’s Batson challenge was timely. He objected within\\nminutes after the third of four black potential jurors was\\nstruck. He objected before the jury was sworn and before the\\ndismissal of the venire. While Batson objections should be\\nraised as early as practicable, the purpose of these challenges\\nand our case law show that an objection to a discriminatory\\nstrike need not occur immediately after a particular strike is\\nmade. After all, “a ‘pattern’ of strikes against black jurors in-\\ncluded in the particular venire might give rise to an inference\\nof discrimination.” Flowers, 139 S. Ct. at 2246, quoting Batson,\\n\\f12 No. 18-1595\\n\\n476 U.S. at 97. The objecting party might not even be aware of\\na violation until several strikes have been made, or even until\\nall peremptory strikes have been exercised by all parties. The\\ntrial judge erred in deeming Lisle’s Batson challenge untimely.\\n We also cannot deem harmless here the erroneous denial\\nof the Batson challenge as untimely. First, a racially motivated\\nstrike of a single juror is forbidden and requires a new trial.\\nFoster, 136 S. Ct. at 1747, quoting Snyder, 552 U.S. at 478. In\\naddition, the trial judge’s sensible effort to “make a record” at\\nthe time fell one critical step short. The judge invited defense\\ncounsel to state for the record race-neutral reasons for their\\nstrikes of the black jurors. They did so, and the judge said they\\nwere indeed race-neutral reasons. The problem is that the\\njudge never took the final step of making a finding on the spot\\nabout the credibility of those reasons. See, e.g., Snyder, 552\\nU.S. at 479 (reversing denial of Batson challenge where trial\\njudge had never made finding on juror’s demeanor or credi-\\nbility of proffered race-neutral reason for strike). And unfor-\\ntunately, counsel did not ask the judge for that one further\\nfinding. While we can glean some information from this rec-\\nord, we have no way to know whether the attorneys were\\ncredible. For example, the record does not show whether sim-\\nilarly situated white jurors were struck for similar reasons,\\nnor did the judge say anything about anyone’s demeanor. 2\\n Because the district court did not make a credibility find-\\ning here, we must remand for further findings and,\\n\\n 2\\n We asked at oral argument whether any peremptory strikes were\\nused on white jurors for similar reasons. Counsel for defendants re-\\nsponded that Juror 9 was white and was also struck because he had a close\\nfamily member who had been incarcerated. The district court, however,\\nnoted on the record that Juror 9 was black. Supp. App. 340.\\n\\fNo. 18-1595 13\\n\\ndepending on the findings, a new trial. Morgan v. City of Chi-\\ncago, 822 F.3d 317, 331 (7th Cir. 2016); United States v. Rutledge,\\n648 F.3d 555, 560 (7th Cir. 2011) (“when we confront an evi-\\ndentiary gap at step three, the ultimate Batson issue cannot be\\nresolved without a remand”). If the district court cannot make\\nthe necessary findings (perhaps because of delay or the vet-\\neran trial judge’s retirement), or if the court ultimately finds\\nthat the stated reasons were not credible, then the case must\\nbe retried. See Rutledge, 648 F.3d at 562 (conviction must be\\nvacated “if the passage of time precludes the district court\\nfrom making such findings, or if it finds that the prosecutor’s\\nreasons are not credible”); United States v. McMath, 559 F.3d\\n657, 666 (7th Cir. 2009) (remand for findings rather than retry-\\ning the case was appropriate remedy in light of court’s failure\\nto make findings on race-neutral reasons when only a year\\nhad passed); see also SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Abbott Labs.,\\n740 F.3d 471, 489 (9th Cir. 2014) (remanding for a new trial\\nafter Batson violation in civil case).\\n B. Cruel and Unusual Punishment Claim Against Nurse South\\n The district court granted summary judgment for Nurse\\nSouth on the ground that simple verbal harassment cannot\\nconstitute cruel and unusual punishment. For purposes of\\nsummary judgment, we must assume South did make the\\nstatements as Lisle claimed, encouraging Lisle to kill himself\\nwhile he was on suicide watch under her care.\\n Summary judgment is appropriate only when the movant\\nshows there is no genuine dispute as to any material facts and\\nis entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Horton v. Pobjecky,\\n883 F.3d 941, 948 (7th Cir. 2018); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). We re-\\nview de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment,\\nconsidering the facts in a light favorable to Lisle and drawing\\n\\f14 No. 18-1595\\n\\nall reasonable inferences in his favor. Horton, 883 F.3d at 948.\\nAt this stage, we may not assess the credibility of the wit-\\nnesses or balance the weight of conflicting evidence. Palmer v.\\nFranz, 928 F.3d 560, 565 (7th Cir. 2019) (reversing summary\\njudgment).\\n The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual pun-\\nishments that involve the unnecessary and wanton infliction\\nof pain. Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 346 (1981). The pro-\\nhibition also includes acts “totally without penological justifi-\\ncation.” Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 737 (2002), quoting Rhodes,\\n452 U.S. at 346. This prohibition reaches wanton infliction of\\npain and deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs\\nof prisoners. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976); Petties v.\\nCarter, 836 F.3d 722, 727–28 (7th Cir. 2016) (en banc).\\n Lisle’s claim against Nurse South lies at the intersection of\\ndeliberate and pointless infliction of psychological injury and\\ndeliberate indifference in medical care. In ordinary medical\\ncare cases under the Eighth Amendment, “we perform a two-\\nstep analysis, first examining whether a plaintiff suffered\\nfrom an objectively serious medical condition, and then deter-\\nmining whether the individual defendant was deliberately in-\\ndifferent to that condition.” Petties, 836 F.3d at 727–28, citing\\nFarmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). In applying this\\ntest, “we look at the totality of an inmate’s medical care when\\nconsidering whether that care evidences deliberate indiffer-\\nence to serious medical needs.” Petties, 836 F.3d at 728–29.\\n At the first step, the risk of suicide is an objectively serious\\nmedical condition, and it is well established that inmates have\\nthe right to be free from deliberate indifference to this risk\\nwhile in custody. See Estate of Clark v. Walker, 865 F.3d 544, 551\\n(7th Cir. 2017) (inmate’s “right to be free from deliberate\\n\\fNo. 18-1595 15\\n\\nindifference to his risk of suicide while he was in custody was\\nclearly established at the time of his death in 2012”); Woodward\\nv. Correctional Medical Servs. of Illinois, Inc., 368 F.3d 917, 926–\\n27, 929 (7th Cir. 2004) (jail managers would be guilty of delib-\\nerate indifference if they took no precautions against the pos-\\nsibility of an inmate’s suicide); Cavalieri v. Shepard, 321 F.3d\\n616, 623 (7th Cir. 2003) (“no doubt” the right of an inmate to\\nbe free from deliberate indifference to his risk of suicide was\\nclearly established in 1998); Hall v. Ryan, 957 F.2d 402, 404–05\\n(7th Cir. 1992) (“It was clearly established in 1986 that police\\nofficers could not be deliberately indifferent to a detainee who\\nis in need of medical attention because of a mental illness or\\nwho is a substantial suicide risk.”).\\n At the second step, “[w]here the harm at issue is a suicide\\nor attempted suicide, the second, subjective component of an\\nEighth Amendment claim requires a dual showing that the\\ndefendant: (1) subjectively knew the prisoner was at substan-\\ntial risk of committing suicide and (2) intentionally disre-\\ngarded the risk.” Collins v. Seeman, 462 F.3d 757, 761 (7th Cir.\\n2006). This requires “more than mere or gross negligence, but\\nless than purposeful infliction of harm.” Matos v. O'Sullivan,\\n335 F.3d 553, 557 (7th Cir. 2003).\\n Proving actual subjective knowledge of the risk is often\\ndifficult, see Petties, 836 F.3d at 728, but not here. Nurse South\\nwas responsible for monitoring and evaluating Lisle while he\\nwas on suicide watch. Lisle met his burden on this half of the\\nsubjective prong. 3\\n\\n\\n3 South argues that Lisle was never in any real danger because he was on\\nsuicide watch. The argument is both speculative and irrelevant to the\\nclaim that her statements were intended to cause him psychological pain.\\n\\f16 No. 18-1595\\n\\n Lisle also offered evidence to support the second compo-\\nnent of this prong—that South intentionally disregarded the\\nrisk of suicide. He need not offer evidence of purposeful in-\\nfliction of harm. Here, Lisle alleges that South was deliber-\\nately indifferent to his risk of suicide by taunting him for be-\\ning unsuccessful and actually encouraging Lisle to kill him-\\nself while he was in the infirmary on suicide watch. Assuming\\nLisle’s account is true, as we must, South’s statements could\\nbe deemed cruel infliction of mental pain and deliberate in-\\ndifference to his risk of suicide, making summary judgment\\nimproper.\\n The district court granted summary judgment, quoting\\nour statement that, “Standing alone, simple verbal harass-\\nment does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment, de-\\nprive a prisoner of a protected liberty interest or deny a pris-\\noner equal protection of the laws.” DeWalt v. Carter, 224 F.3d\\n\\n\\nThat alleged pain did not depend on Lisle’s ability to follow through on\\nhis suicidal intent. See Edwards v. Snyder, 478 F.3d 827, 831 (7th Cir. 2007)\\n(reversing dismissal; prisoner’s receipt of some medical care does not au-\\ntomatically defeat claim of deliberate indifference; fact-finder could infer\\nintentional mistreatment was likely to seriously aggravate a medical con-\\ndition); see also Jordan v. Gardner, 986 F.2d 1521, 1526 (9th Cir. 1993) (find-\\ning deliberate indifference to female inmate’s psychological vulnerabili-\\nties when cross-gender searches exacerbated symptoms of “pre-existing\\nmental conditions”). Also, unfortunately, there is no guarantee an inmate\\nis safe from the risk of suicide while on suicide watch. Suicide-prevention\\nmeasures reduce opportunities to commit suicide, but according to a 2010\\nstudy conducted by the National Institute of Corrections, about 7.5% of\\ninmates who committed suicide in 2005 and 2006 were on suicide watch.\\nNational Institute of Corrections, U.S. Department of Justice, National\\nStudy of Jail Suicide 20 Years Later, https://info.nicic.gov/nicrp/sys-\\ntem/files/024308.pdf at page 27, April 2010.\\n\\fNo. 18-1595 17\\n\\n607, 612 (7th Cir. 2000) (officer allegedly used racially and sex-\\nually derogatory language). Since DeWalt, however, we have\\nsaid that its language was too broad, explaining: “The propo-\\nsition that verbal harassment cannot amount to cruel and un-\\nusual punishment is incorrect.” Beal v. Foster, 803 F.3d 356, 357\\n(7th Cir. 2015).\\n Our analysis in Hughes and Beal confirms that the “simple\\nverbal harassment” language of DeWalt would not preclude a\\nreasonable jury from finding deliberate indifference here. In\\nHughes v. Scott, 816 F.3d 955 (7th Cir. 2016), we reversed dis-\\nmissal of an inmate’s claim where he had been committed in-\\nvoluntarily to a facility for individuals suffering from mental\\ndisorders. The plaintiff alleged that the staff called him “igno-\\nrant,” “stupid,” and a “moron.” Id. at 957. They also told him\\nhis life would go better if he stopped filing grievances about\\nhis treatment at the facility. We distinguished DeWalt and de-\\ntermined that the alleged statements to Hughes went beyond\\nsimple verbal harassment because of his vulnerability: “Just\\nas police when interrogating children are held to understand\\nthe mental and psychological differences between adults and\\nchildrenYso staff of an institution that houses and treats per-\\nsons suffering from mental disorders should be held to un-\\nderstand that they are dealing with psychologically impaired\\npersons.” Id. at 957 (internal citation omitted).\\n In Beal v. Foster, a male inmate brought an Eighth Amend-\\nment claim against a male officer who he claimed made sexual\\ninnuendos about him in front of other inmates. 803 F.3d at\\n358. The district court dismissed on the theory that the state-\\nments were simple verbal harassment. We reversed. The\\nguard’s statements and behavior could have been understood\\nby other inmates as implying Beal was homosexual. Beal\\n\\f18 No. 18-1595\\n\\nfeared an increased risk of sexual assaults by other inmates,\\nand could have inflicted “significant psychological harm on\\nhim” in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Id. at 359.\\n In support of this conclusion, Beal used hypotheticals to\\nshow that verbal harassment can rise to a level that violates\\nthe Eighth Amendment. For instance, it would be cruel and\\nunusual for a correctional officer to tell an inmate with a se-\\nvere headache that the doctor had told the officer the inmate\\nactually had terminal brain cancer. Id. at 357. Or suppose a\\nguard tells an inmate falsely that his family has been killed in\\na car crash. Id. These classic examples would violate the\\nEighth Amendment despite the lack of physical abuse. In\\nother words, “the alleged pain [sufficient to constitute cruel\\npunishment] may be physical or psychological.” Id. at 357–58,\\nquoting Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012);\\nsee also Jordan v. Gardner, 986 F.2d 1521, 1528 (9th Cir. 1993)\\n(en banc) (affirming permanent injunction against cross-gen-\\nder searches of female inmates; prison officials acted with de-\\nliberate indifference to harm that cross-gender clothed body\\nsearches were likely to cause female inmates who had been\\nvictims of sexual abuse).\\n With the understanding that the Eighth Amendment also\\nprotects psychologically vulnerable inmates against psycho-\\nlogical pain deliberately inflicted by correctional officers,\\nNurse South’s alleged statements, if made, went beyond\\n“simple verbal harassment.” She is alleged to have taunted\\nand encouraged an inmate known to be suicidal and in the\\nmidst of a mental health crisis to take his own life. As his\\nnurse on suicide watch, she was uniquely situated to aggra-\\nvate Lisle’s condition by using her specialized knowledge to\\ntarget his psychological vulnerabilities, causing him\\n\\fNo. 18-1595 19\\n\\npsychological pain. Nurse South denies making these state-\\nments, as noted, but the factual disagreement simply under-\\nscores the issues of material fact to be decided at trial.\\n We are not persuaded by Nurse South’s attempts to distin-\\nguish Beal and Hughes. She points out that Beal involved sex-\\nual harassment and fear of sexual attacks. Thus it was not\\n“simple verbal harassment” because it involved the danger of\\nexposing the inmate to sexual assault. We do not see a consti-\\ntutionally relevant line between vulnerability to sexual at-\\ntacks and vulnerability to suicide. In both situations, prison\\nstaff would be exploiting a known vulnerability to create a\\ndanger or harm that cannot have any legitimate penological\\npurpose.\\n South also points out that Hughes and Beal reversed dis-\\nmissals on the pleadings rather than after summary judg-\\nment. Such differences in procedural posture can be im-\\nportant, but not for this question of law. See also Olson v.\\nBloomberg, 339 F.3d 730, 737–38 (8th Cir. 2003) (affirming de-\\nnial of summary judgment; reasonable jury could infer delib-\\nerate indifference to risk of suicide where correctional officer\\nsaid, “you do what you got to do,” when inmate said he\\nwould hang himself).\\n Finally, Nurse South points to the medical care she pro-\\nvided to help Lisle while he was on suicide watch as evidence\\nthat she was not deliberately indifferent to his risk of suicide.\\nFor instance, she checked his vital signs regularly, performed\\nneurological examinations, and requested an examination by\\na mental health physician. This evidence may well be power-\\nful at trial, but it is not conclusive as a matter of law on a mo-\\ntion for summary judgment. Evidence of “some medical care\\ndoes not automatically defeat a claim of deliberate\\n\\f20 No. 18-1595\\n\\nindifference if a fact finder could infer the treatment was ‘so\\nblatantly inappropriate as to evidence intentional mistreat-\\nment likely to seriously aggravate’ a medical condition.” Ed-\\nwards v. Snyder, 478 F.3d 827, 831 (7th Cir. 2007), quoting\\nSnipes v. DeTella, 95 F.3d 586, 592 (7th Cir. 1996). Encouraging\\na suicidal inmate to kill himself, if that in fact happened,\\nwould fit this description.\\n We intend this holding to be narrow. Repugnant words,\\nlike those alleged in DeWalt, will seldom rise to an Eighth\\nAmendment violation. As we acknowledged in Beal, “most\\nverbal harassment by jail or prison guards does not rise to the\\nlevel of cruel and unusual punishment.” 803 F.3d at 358. Re-\\nlationships between prisoners and prison staff are not always\\nmarked by genteel language and good manners. The Eighth\\nAmendment nevertheless can apply to an extreme case where\\nmedical staff use an inmate’s known psychological vulnera-\\nbility to cause psychological anguish.\\n On remand the district court may need to consider what\\nimpact, if any, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e) may have on these claims.\\nSection 1997e(e) provides: “No Federal civil action may be\\nbrought by a prisoner confined in a jail, prison, or other cor-\\nrectional facility, for mental or emotional injury suffered\\nwhile in custody without a prior showing of physical injury\\nor the commission of a sexual act.” We have read this provi-\\nsion to apply only to compensatory damages, not nominal or\\npunitive damages involving no physical injury. Calhoun v. De-\\nTella, 319 F.3d 936, 941 (7th Cir. 2003). We are not alone in in-\\nterpreting § 1997e(e) this way. See Thompson v. Carter, 284 F.3d\\n411, 418 (2d Cir. 2002) (punitive damages for Eighth Amend-\\nment violations not barred); Oliver v. Keller, 289 F.3d 623, 630\\n(9th Cir. 2002) (punitive damages for constitutional violation\\n\\fNo. 18-1595 21\\n\\nnot barred); Doe v. Delie, 257 F.3d 309, 314 (3d Cir. 2001)\\n(“§ 1997e(e) does not bar claims seeking nominal damages to\\nvindicate constitutional rights, nor claims seeking punitive\\ndamages to deter or punish egregious violations of constitu-\\ntional rights”); Searles v. Van Bebber, 251 F.3d 869, 881 (10th Cir.\\n2001) (“salient fact is that Congress simply did not choose to\\nprovide a restriction on punitive damages”).\\n C. Equal Protection\\n Lisle next claims Lieutenants Samuel and Brookman vio-\\nlated his Fourteenth Amendment rights by placing him in\\nsegregation but not his white cellmate. “Prisoners are pro-\\ntected under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth\\nAmendment from invidious discrimination based on race.”\\nWolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974). Protection from\\ndisparate treatment based upon race does not vanish merely\\nbecause a person is incarcerated. Id. at 555.\\n To avoid summary judgment on this claim, Lisle needed\\nto come forward with evidence that would allow a reasonable\\njury to infer that the defendants intentionally treated him dif-\\nferently because of his race. In Ortiz v. Werner Enterprises, Inc.,\\n834 F.3d 760 (7th Cir. 2016), our opinion explained that courts\\ndeciding whether a defendant acted with a discriminatory\\nmotive (in Ortiz, an employment decision) should avoid get-\\nting entangled by formal methods and distinctions between\\ndirect and circumstantial evidence. Instead, we explained, the\\nstandard is whether all the evidence “would permit a reason-\\nable factfinder to conclude that plaintiff’s race, ethnicity, sex,\\nreligion, or other proscribed factor caused the discharge or\\nother adverse employment action.” Id. at 765. The same rea-\\nsoning and standard apply to a claim of intentional and un-\\nconstitutional race discrimination by prison officials.\\n\\f22 No. 18-1595\\n\\n If the disciplinary decisions by Lieutenant Brookman (per-\\nhaps aided by Lieutenant Samuel) were motivated by race,\\nthat would violate the Equal Protection Clause. Brown v. Budz,\\n398 F.3d 904, 916–17 (7th Cir. 2005); see also Harris v. Greer,\\n750 F.2d 617, 618 (7th Cir. 1984) (“A policy of deliberate racial\\nsegregation of prisoners would raise serious questions under\\nthe equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”);\\nWilliams v. Lane, 851 F.2d 867, 881–82 (7th Cir. 1988) (unequal\\ntreatment of inmates without rational relation to legitimate\\npenal interest violates Equal Protection).\\n Lisle, however, has not presented evidence that would al-\\nlow a jury to infer reasonably that Lieutenants Samuel or\\nBrookman acted based on racial animus. Starting first with\\nSamuel, nothing in the record could lead a reasonable jury to\\ndetermine that he even had the authority to decide that Lisle\\nwould be placed in disciplinary segregation and his cellmate\\nwould not. The disciplinary charges for Lisle and his cellmate\\nwere both signed by an officer who is not a party in this action.\\nSamuel’s only involvement in Lisle’s segregation was that he\\nescorted him there pending his disciplinary hearing.\\n Lieutenant Brookman served as one of two members of the\\nAdjustment Committee that oversaw Lisle’s disciplinary\\nhearing. Lisle claims Brookman denied him the right to call a\\nwitness during the disciplinary hearing because Lisle is black.\\nLisle introduced no evidence, though, suggesting that Brook-\\nman’s failure to call Samuel was based on race or that Brook-\\nman permitted similarly situated white inmates to call wit-\\nnesses while not allowing black inmates to do so. Undisputed\\nevidence instead indicates the decision was based on the al-\\nleged threats and abuse that the correctional officers appar-\\nently found credible. In this instance, correctional officers\\n\\fNo. 18-1595 23\\n\\nbelieved the white inmate, not the black inmate. Without\\nmore evidence of racial motive, the officers’ judgments about\\nwhom to believe are not sufficient to allow a jury to infer racial\\nbias. Lisle’s claim of race discrimination is supported only by\\nspeculation and conjecture, which is not enough to survive\\nsummary judgment. Boston v. U.S. Steel Corp., 816 F.3d 455,\\n466 (7th Cir. 2016). We affirm the district court’s grant of sum-\\nmary judgment on Lisle’s equal protection claims.\\n D. Deprivation of Liberty Without Due Process\\n Finally, the district court correctly granted summary judg-\\nment on the due process claim against Lieutenant Brookman.\\nWhen an inmate raises a due process claim for a disciplinary\\nproceeding, he must demonstrate: (1) the deprivation of a lib-\\nerty interest; and (2) the procedures he was afforded were\\nconstitutionally deficient. Scruggs v. Jordan, 485 F.3d 934, 939\\n(7th Cir. 2007). Lisle fails at the first step, so we do not address\\nwhether the procedures were constitutionally deficient.\\n Lisle’s claimed liberty interest was avoiding assignment to\\na segregation cell. Avoiding segregation can constitute a pro-\\ntected liberty interest, but the facts matter. Hardaway v. Mey-\\nerhoff, 734 F.3d 740, 743 (7th Cir. 2013), citing Marion v. Colum-\\nbia Correction Inst., 559 F.3d 693, 697 (7th Cir. 2009). This inter-\\nest is triggered only when the confinement imposes “atypical\\nand significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordi-\\nnary incidents of prison life.” Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472,\\n484 (1995). When considering whether disciplinary segrega-\\ntion imposes atypical and significant hardships, we look to\\nboth the duration of the segregation and the conditions en-\\ndured. Marion, 559 F.3d at 697.\\n\\f24 No. 18-1595\\n\\n First, the duration of segregation was not an atypical or\\nsignificant hardship. We have found that, depending on the\\nconditions of confinement and whether there were any addi-\\ntional punishments, a period of segregation considerably\\nshorter than four months may satisfy this requirement. Kervin\\nv. Barnes, 787 F.3d 833, 836 (7th Cir. 2015) (collecting cases).\\nHowever, we have also found longer durations did not. Mar-\\nion, 559 F.3d at 698 (six months of segregation is not such an\\nextreme term as to trigger due process rights without more).\\nA sentence of four months in segregation for the discovery of\\ncontraband is not so atypical and significantly harsh that it\\ncreates a liberty interest.\\n Second, Lisle has not shown that the conditions of his con-\\nfinement in segregation themselves imposed atypical and sig-\\nnificant hardships. Lisle needed to show that the conditions\\nof his confinement in his segregated cell deviated substan-\\ntially from the ordinary conditions of prison life. Sandin, 515\\nU.S. at 486 (inmates must demonstrate that punishment con-\\nstituted dramatic departure from basic conditions of prison\\nlife to present atypical and significant hardship such that it\\nwould create liberty interest); Kervin, 787 F.3d at 836 (“the crit-\\nical question is how far the treatment of the complaining in-\\nmate deviates from [the] ordinary conditions” of a high-secu-\\nrity prison and the conditions under which prisoner is actu-\\nally held). In short, if the disciplinary measures do not “sub-\\nstantially worsen the conditions of confinement” of an in-\\nmate, then he has not been deprived of a protected liberty in-\\nterest. Miller v. Dobier, 634 F.3d 412, 414–15 (7th Cir. 2011).\\n We agree with the district court that Lisle did not offer ev-\\nidence that would allow a reasonable jury to find the condi-\\ntions of his segregation imposed atypical and significant\\n\\fNo. 18-1595 25\\n\\nhardships. The vague description of his cell, including rust on\\nthe bars and “corroded feces” in the toilet, does not itself re-\\nveal much. Regardless, a jury could not reasonably infer that\\nthese conditions were unique to cells in the segregation unit\\nor that these conditions caused Lisle any significant hardship.\\nLisle is correct that we do not find conditions are typical and\\nacceptable merely because they do not rise to the most ex-\\ntreme conditions, but he needed to offer some evidence that\\nwould allow a jury to determine that the conditions in segre-\\ngation deviated substantially from ordinary conditions of his\\nconfinement.\\n Lisle further argues that placing an inmate in a cell that\\nexacerbates his depression and suicidal urges without provid-\\ning a crisis team implicates his liberty interest. We need not\\ndecide whether this is correct because the record does not re-\\nflect Lisle’s mental health crisis was exacerbated by the con-\\nditions of his confinement. Instead, the record shows Lisle at-\\ntributes his frustration with the disciplinary hearing and the\\ngrievance process as the trigger for his worsening mental\\nhealth.\\n * * *\\n To sum up, we REVERSE summary judgment for Nurse\\nSouth on the Eighth Amendment claim based on her alleged\\ntaunts. On the Batson claim, we VACATE the portions of the\\njudgment based on the trial verdict and REMAND for addi-\\ntional findings on the credibility of the defendants’ race-neu-\\ntral explanations for their peremptory strikes of black pro-\\nspective jurors, and for such further proceedings as are\\nneeded consistent with this opinion, which may include a\\n\\f26 No. 18-1595\\n\\nnew trial on the claims that were tried. In all other respects\\nthe judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 4\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n4 Lisle’s deliberate indifference claim against the remaining defendants\\nfor allegedly failing to address his grievances was not briefed on appeal\\nand thus waived. United States v. Webster, 775 F.3d 897, 904 (7th Cir. 2015)\\n(arguments not raised in party’s opening brief are waived); see also Ow-\\nens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 953 (7th Cir. 2011) (mere mishandling of pris-\\noner’s grievance does not support claim).\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4422371/\", \"author_raw\": \"David Frank Hamilton\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"HAMILTON"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"BARRETT"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"ST EVE"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"HAMILTON\": \", Circuit\", \"BARRETT\": \", Circuit\", \"ST EVE\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645118/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":8,"string":"8"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Steven Lisle, Jr. v. William Welborn\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-08-01\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-1595\nSTEVEN D. LISLE, JR.,\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\n v.\n\nWILLIAM WELBORN, et al.,\n Defendants-Appellees.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Southern District of Illinois.\n No. 3:15-CV-00965 — Michael J. Reagan, Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED MARCH 29, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 1, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before HAMILTON, BARRETT, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.\n HAMILTON, Circuit Judge. This appeal presents issues stem-\nming from a prison’s discipline of a prisoner and his later su-\nicide attempts. The story began in 2014 when correctional of-\nficers at the Menard Correctional Facility found contraband\nalcohol in the cell of plaintiff Steven D. Lisle, Jr. Lisle’s cell-\nmate at first took responsibility for the contraband but later\nrecanted outside of Lisle’s presence. He said instead that Lisle\nhad been abusing him and had forced him to take the blame\n\f2 No. 18-1595\n\nfor the alcohol. In disciplinary proceedings, Lisle later asked\nto call a witness to testify about his cellmate’s initial admis-\nsions. His requests were ignored. Lisle, who is black, was sen-\ntenced to four months in disciplinary segregation. His cell-\nmate, who was white, was not disciplined.\n While in segregation, Lisle attempted to commit suicide\nthree times. His third attempt was nearly successful, and he\nwas placed on suicide watch in the prison infirmary. While\nthere, Lisle claims, a nurse taunted him for his failed suicide\nattempts and encouraged him to try again. Lisle filed this suit\nalleging that he was punished based on his race, that he was\ndeprived of liberty without due process of law, and that the\nprison staff’s conduct in the wake of his mental health crisis—\nincluding the nurse’s statements—amounted to cruel and un-\nusual punishment.\n The district court granted summary judgment on several\nclaims but held a jury trial on Lisle’s claims for deliberate in-\ndifference to a serious medical need. During jury selection,\ndefense lawyers used peremptory strikes to remove three of\nthe four black potential jurors. After the jury was selected, but\nbefore it was sworn and the venire released, Lisle’s counsel\nobjected pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986),\nchallenging the use of peremptory strikes against the black\njurors. The judge denied the objection as untimely.\n Lisle appeals the summary judgment decision and seeks a\nnew trial based on his Batson claim. We agree that his Batson\nclaim was timely, and we cannot find that the erroneous de-\nnial was harmless. We remand for an evidentiary hearing on\nthe Batson claim and, if necessary, a new trial on all claims that\nwere tried. We also reverse summary judgment for the nurse\n\fNo. 18-1595 3\n\non the taunting claim. We affirm all other aspects of the judg-\nment.\nI. Factual & Procedural Background\n A. Cell Search & Disciplinary Proceeding\n To the extent we review the partial grant of summary\njudgment, we review the facts in the light most favorable to\nLisle as the non-moving party, giving him the benefit of con-\nflicts in the evidence. Spaine v. Community Contacts, Inc., 756\nF.3d 542, 544 (7th Cir. 2014). Steven D. Lisle, Jr. was an inmate\nat the Menard Correctional Center in Illinois, where he shared\na cell with another inmate. On August 12, 2014, when Lisle\nwas at the prison gym, correctional officers searched his cell\nand found contraband: a trash bag of liquid that contained 7%\nalcohol. Two correctional officers took Lisle to segregation to\nawait a disciplinary hearing.\n On the way to the segregation unit, he crossed paths with\nhis cellmate, who had also been at the gym when the search\noccurred. Lisle asked his cellmate if he was going to “take his\nweight” (claim responsibility) for the contraband. The cell-\nmate said yes and told Lisle that he had “already told them\nwhatever they found” in the cell was his. Lieutenant Michael\nSamuel was within earshot of this conversation. Lisle told\nLieutenant Samuel that he was going to call him as a witness\nat his disciplinary hearing. Samuel told Lisle he would testify.\n Outside of Lisle’s presence, though, his cellmate later re-\ncanted. He said he had claimed the alcohol was his only be-\ncause Lisle had put him “through some serious hell.” The cell-\nmate revealed extensive bruising all over his body that he\nclaimed was the result of Lisle’s physical and sexual abuse.\nHe expressed fear for his life. The cellmate was placed in\n\f4 No. 18-1595\n\nprotective custody and a rape kit was used to test him. He was\nnever placed in segregation, and the Adjustment Committee\nfound him not guilty for the contraband. Lieutenant Brook-\nman testified in this case that Lisle was not informed of the\nallegations his cellmate made because disclosing to an alleged\nabuser that his victim has reported the abuse is “what gets\npeople hurt in prison.”\n Once Lisle was placed in segregation, a correctional officer\nprovided him with a copy of the disciplinary report outlining\nthe charged violations. Lisle asked for a pen so that he could\nsign the report and ask to have Lieutenant Samuel testify at\nthe disciplinary hearing. The officer refused, so Lisle made an\noral request that Samuel be called to testify. The next day,\nLisle met with his counselor and again made an oral request\nto call Lieutenant Samuel as a witness. His counselor for-\nwarded the request to Internal Affairs, which in turn faxed the\nrequest to the Adjustment Committee.\n Two days after the search, the disciplinary hearing was\nheld before the Adjustment Committee comprised of Lieuten-\nant Kent Brookman and another official whom Lisle has not\nsued. Lieutenant Samuel did not attend the disciplinary hear-\ning. Brookman indicated he had already spoken with Samuel\nand would do so again. 1\n The Adjustment Committee found Lisle guilty and sen-\ntenced him to four months of disciplinary segregation and\nfour months of reduced privileges, such as commissary re-\nstrictions, and six months of contact visit restriction. Despite\nLisle’s request that Samuel testify at least three times, the\n\n 1 It is not clear from the record whether Brookman actually spoke with\n\nSamuel or not. For purposes of summary judgment, we assume he did not.\n\fNo. 18-1595 5\n\nAdjustment Committee’s final report indicated that he had\nnot requested a witness.\n B. Lisle’s Mental Health Crisis\n While in segregation, Lisle attempted to commit suicide\nwith a makeshift rope three times over the course of three\ndays. He claimed that being denied the chance to present a\nwitness at his hearing and the slow response to the post-hear-\ning grievances he filed caused him to become depressed. He\nrepeatedly asked for a mental health and crisis team but did\nnot receive intervening assistance before his third suicide at-\ntempt.\n Lisle described his segregation cell as being poorly venti-\nlated, with rusty bars and with corroded feces in the toilet. He\nwas not given a brush to clean the toilet, and he had access to\nfewer cleaning supplies due to his loss of commissary privi-\nleges. He also had fewer privileges than when he was in gen-\neral population, such as loss of access to the gym and fewer\nopportunities to go outside or shower. He had a cellmate\nthroughout his entire stay in “segregation.”\n Lisle described his first two suicide attempts in a deposi-\ntion taken April 25, 2017. He said his first suicide attempt on\nSeptember 3, 2014 failed when the makeshift rope he tied\naround his neck snapped under his weight. Lisle alleges Lieu-\ntenant Welborn and Nurse Reeves witnessed the attempt.\nLisle claims he informed them he was attempting to kill him-\nself and handed Reeves a suicide note. According to Lisle,\nthey both walked away without a word.\n The next day, Lisle again attempted suicide unsuccess-\nfully, this time, he says, in the presence of correctional officer\nChristopher McClure and another nurse, Jodi Hormann. Lisle\n\f6 No. 18-1595\n\nagain claims he handed the nurse a suicide note and told them\nboth that he intended to kill himself. In a repeat of the day\nbefore, Lisle says, the two prison staff members simply\nwalked away. Before Lisle attempted suicide a third time, he\ngave another officer, Cale Young, a third suicide note and in-\nformed the officer that he was going to attempt suicide again.\nAccording to Lisle, Young put the note in his pocket and\nwalked away.\n The night of September 5, 2014, Lisle attempted to commit\nsuicide a third time while his cellmate was asleep. This time,\na correctional officer and a medical staff member saw him\nhanging in his cell and yelled for his cellmate to help. His cell-\nmate helped the officers support Lisle by his legs to give the\nofficers time to remove the rope from his neck. Lisle was taken\nto the infirmary, where the medical staff noted he had injuries\non his neck that appeared several days old, consistent with\nprior suicide attempts. He remained in the infirmary and was\nplaced on suicide watch.\n On the instructions of the medical director, Lisle was\nplaced on “strip cell suicide watch,” which meant he was not\nprovided a mattress and could use only a suicide-resistant\nblanket. He was also checked every ten minutes, with vital\nsigns checked every two hours. Jana South was a nurse work-\ning in the infirmary when Lisle was admitted. Lisle testified\nthat when Nurse South evaluated him a few hours later, she\nrepeatedly mocked him for failing to kill himself. She la-\nmented that Lisle had not succeeded in his suicide attempts,\ntold him he should have done it “properly,” and said he\nshould “do a better job next time.” Later, Lisle also com-\nplained that his back hurt from sleeping on the steel slab with-\nout a mattress and requested a blanket because his cell was\n\fNo. 18-1595 7\n\ntoo cold. South taunted him, saying that if he wanted a mat-\ntress, he should not be on suicide watch and that he should\nnot care about being cold or uncomfortable since he was try-\ning to kill himself. South denied making any of these state-\nments.\n Despite the dispute about what Nurse South said, it is un-\ndisputed that she continued to provide care to Lisle. She eval-\nuated him several times, took his vital signs, and conducted\nat least one neurological examination. After her first evalua-\ntion of Lisle, South also called a mental health physician to\nevaluate Lisle, which occurred the next morning. Lisle re-\nmained in the infirmary for six days.\n C. Partial Summary Judgment and Trial\n Lisle sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, bringing five counts\nagainst fourteen prison staff members. First, he claimed Lieu-\ntenant Brookman, as chair of the Adjustment Committee, de-\nprived him of a protected liberty interest without due process\nof law when he failed to call Lieutenant Samuel to testify.\nLisle also alleged that Lieutenants Samuel and Brookman and\nthe second officer who brought Lisle to segregation discrimi-\nnated against him based on his race. Count III alleged an\nEighth Amendment claim against Reeves, Welborn, Hor-\nmann, McClure, Young, and South, for their failure to obtain\nmedical help for Lisle when he was suicidal, and for Nurse\nSouth’s verbal abuse of Lisle when he was on suicide watch.\nHe also sued Nurse South based on his experiences in the in-\nfirmary and her alleged refusal to call a doctor when he re-\nquested one. Finally, he alleged that several prison officials\nviolated his constitutional rights in their handling of multiple\ngrievances he had filed.\n\f8 No. 18-1595\n\n The defendants moved for summary judgment. The dis-\ntrict court granted the motion in part on the due process claim\nbecause Lisle failed to show that confinement in segregation\ndeprived him of a protected liberty interest. The district court\nalso granted summary judgment for the equal protection de-\nfendants, finding no evidence of racial motive in any defend-\nant’s actions.\n The district court dismissed the deliberate indifference\nclaim against Nurse South for her conduct in the infirmary.\nThe district court reasoned that under DeWalt v. Carter, 224\nF.3d 607, 612 (7th Cir. 2000), the alleged taunting would be\n“reprehensible,” but would amount only to “simple verbal\nharassment,” which would not amount to cruel and unusual\npunishment. The court explained: “though South may have\nmade statements suggesting Plaintiff kill himself, she none-\ntheless did her job and treated Plaintiff. Defendant South\ntherefore did not exhibit deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s\nrisk of suicide.” The court denied summary judgment on the\nclaims of deliberate indifference against the prison staff mem-\nbers for their alleged failure to act when Lisle was suicidal.\n The court granted summary judgment dismissing most of\nLisle’s conditions-of-confinement claims, but the court denied\nsummary judgment on his claim that Nurse South refused to\ncall a doctor. Finally, the court dismissed the claims against\nvarious prison officials for their failure to act on the griev-\nances he submitted because Lisle failed to provide sufficient\nevidence to support these claims.\n The surviving claims were tried to a jury. During voir dire,\nonly four African-American veniremen were called. The two\nteams of defense counsel used three of their six peremptory\nstrikes against black panel members. Just after the jurors were\n\fNo. 18-1595 9\n\nselected, but before they were sworn and the venire released,\nLisle’s attorney objected pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky, 476\nU.S. 79 (1986), that those three strikes were racially motivated.\nThe district court denied Lisle’s objection as untimely. The\ncourt told Lisle he “should have made [the objections] while\nwe were doing it. I think you waived at this juncture. We can\nmake a record. I know we do have an African American on\nthe jury.”\n The court then addressed defense counsel, explaining that\nif they wanted “to make a responseY I am happy to listen to\nrace neutral responsesY. It is probably a good opportunity for\nyou to respond if you have a race neutral response you want\nto give or you don’t have to respond at all.” Counsel for the\nmedical defendants briefly explained that they struck two\nblack jurors who had close family members who had been in-\ncarcerated. Counsel doubted those jurors’ abilities to be fair\nto the defendants in this case, despite the jurors’ assertions\nthat the family members’ experiences would not affect their\ndecision. The judge said that the reasons proffered were race\nneutral, but he did not make any express finding that he be-\nlieved the offered reasons were honest.\n After a three-day trial, a jury found for Lisle on the claim\nthat Reeves, Welborn, Hormann, and McClure were deliber-\nately indifferent to his suicide attempts, but the jury awarded\nhim only $300 in compensatory damages. The jury found in\nfavor of Nurse South on the claim that she denied Lisle a phy-\nsician. The jury also found for Young on the claim of deliber-\nate indifference to Lisle’s suicide attempt and for Hill on the\nclaim that she was deliberately indifferent to a serious risk of\nharm to Lisle by ignoring his grievances.\n\f10 No. 18-1595\n\n On appeal, Lisle argues that his Batson challenge was\ntimely and that summary judgment for the defendants was\nimproper on some claims: whether South’s comments vio-\nlated the Eighth Amendment, whether Lieutenants Brookman\nand Samuel violated the Equal Protection Clause, and\nwhether Brookman deprived him of liberty without due pro-\ncess when he refused to call Samuel as a witness.\nII. Analysis\n We begin with the district court’s ruling on the Batson chal-\nlenge before analyzing its decisions to grant summary judg-\nment on the Eighth Amendment, equal protection, and due\nprocess claims.\n A. Batson Challenge\n In Batson v. Kentucky, the Supreme Court held that “the\nState denies a black defendant equal protection of the laws\nwhen it puts him on trial before a jury from which members\nof his race have been purposefully excluded.” 476 U.S. 79, 85\n(1986). Batson has been extended to civil cases, so peremptory\nstrikes simply may not be used on account of race. Foster v.\nChatman, 136 S. Ct. 1737, 1747 (2016) (“The ‘Constitution for-\nbids striking even a single prospective juror for a discrimina-\ntory purpose.’”), quoting Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472, 478\n(2008); Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., 500 U.S. 614, 631\n(1991) (Batson applies to civil cases).\n A Batson claim is analyzed in a three-step process in the\ntrial court. First, if a party suspects peremptory strikes are be-\ning used for discriminatory reasons, he must object and make\na prima facie case of racial discrimination. “[T]he burden at\nthe prima facie stage is low, requiring only circumstances rais-\ning a suspicion that discrimination occurred, even where\n\fNo. 18-1595 11\n\nthose circumstances are insufficient to indicate that it is more\nlikely than not that the challenges were used to discriminate.”\nUnited States v. Stephens, 421 F.3d 503, 512 (7th Cir. 2005). Sec-\nond, if the court finds the party has made a prima facie show-\ning of discrimination, the burden shifts to the striking party\nto provide a race-neutral reason for the strike. Flowers v. Mis-\nsissippi, 139 S. Ct. 2228, 2241 (2019). Third, the trial judge must\nthen “determine whether the Y stated reasons were the actual\nreasons or instead were a pretext for discrimination.” Id.\n The district court rejected Lisle’s Batson challenge as un-\ntimely. Trial judges have considerable flexibility and discre-\ntion in managing jury selection, including how they provide\na reasonable opportunity to raise Batson challenges. A reason-\nable opportunity to raise a Batson challenge is essential. This\nBatson challenge was not untimely. We have said that “[c]on-\ntemporaneous objection is imperative with respect to Batson\nclaims,” United States v. Chandler, 12 F.3d 1427, 1431 (7th Cir.\n1994), but contemporaneous does not mean instantaneous.\nRather, “the dismissal of the venire or the swearing of the jury\nis the presumptive deadline for making Batson challenges.”\nUnited States v. Williams, 819 F.3d 1026, 1029 (7th Cir. 2016).\n Lisle’s Batson challenge was timely. He objected within\nminutes after the third of four black potential jurors was\nstruck. He objected before the jury was sworn and before the\ndismissal of the venire. While Batson objections should be\nraised as early as practicable, the purpose of these challenges\nand our case law show that an objection to a discriminatory\nstrike need not occur immediately after a particular strike is\nmade. After all, “a ‘pattern’ of strikes against black jurors in-\ncluded in the particular venire might give rise to an inference\nof discrimination.” Flowers, 139 S. Ct. at 2246, quoting Batson,\n\f12 No. 18-1595\n\n476 U.S. at 97. The objecting party might not even be aware of\na violation until several strikes have been made, or even until\nall peremptory strikes have been exercised by all parties. The\ntrial judge erred in deeming Lisle’s Batson challenge untimely.\n We also cannot deem harmless here the erroneous denial\nof the Batson challenge as untimely. First, a racially motivated\nstrike of a single juror is forbidden and requires a new trial.\nFoster, 136 S. Ct. at 1747, quoting Snyder, 552 U.S. at 478. In\naddition, the trial judge’s sensible effort to “make a record” at\nthe time fell one critical step short. The judge invited defense\ncounsel to state for the record race-neutral reasons for their\nstrikes of the black jurors. They did so, and the judge said they\nwere indeed race-neutral reasons. The problem is that the\njudge never took the final step of making a finding on the spot\nabout the credibility of those reasons. See, e.g., Snyder, 552\nU.S. at 479 (reversing denial of Batson challenge where trial\njudge had never made finding on juror’s demeanor or credi-\nbility of proffered race-neutral reason for strike). And unfor-\ntunately, counsel did not ask the judge for that one further\nfinding. While we can glean some information from this rec-\nord, we have no way to know whether the attorneys were\ncredible. For example, the record does not show whether sim-\nilarly situated white jurors were struck for similar reasons,\nnor did the judge say anything about anyone’s demeanor. 2\n Because the district court did not make a credibility find-\ning here, we must remand for further findings and,\n\n 2\n We asked at oral argument whether any peremptory strikes were\nused on white jurors for similar reasons. Counsel for defendants re-\nsponded that Juror 9 was white and was also struck because he had a close\nfamily member who had been incarcerated. The district court, however,\nnoted on the record that Juror 9 was black. Supp. App. 340.\n\fNo. 18-1595 13\n\ndepending on the findings, a new trial. Morgan v. City of Chi-\ncago, 822 F.3d 317, 331 (7th Cir. 2016); United States v. Rutledge,\n648 F.3d 555, 560 (7th Cir. 2011) (“when we confront an evi-\ndentiary gap at step three, the ultimate Batson issue cannot be\nresolved without a remand”). If the district court cannot make\nthe necessary findings (perhaps because of delay or the vet-\neran trial judge’s retirement), or if the court ultimately finds\nthat the stated reasons were not credible, then the case must\nbe retried. See Rutledge, 648 F.3d at 562 (conviction must be\nvacated “if the passage of time precludes the district court\nfrom making such findings, or if it finds that the prosecutor’s\nreasons are not credible”); United States v. McMath, 559 F.3d\n657, 666 (7th Cir. 2009) (remand for findings rather than retry-\ning the case was appropriate remedy in light of court’s failure\nto make findings on race-neutral reasons when only a year\nhad passed); see also SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Abbott Labs.,\n740 F.3d 471, 489 (9th Cir. 2014) (remanding for a new trial\nafter Batson violation in civil case).\n B. Cruel and Unusual Punishment Claim Against Nurse South\n The district court granted summary judgment for Nurse\nSouth on the ground that simple verbal harassment cannot\nconstitute cruel and unusual punishment. For purposes of\nsummary judgment, we must assume South did make the\nstatements as Lisle claimed, encouraging Lisle to kill himself\nwhile he was on suicide watch under her care.\n Summary judgment is appropriate only when the movant\nshows there is no genuine dispute as to any material facts and\nis entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Horton v. Pobjecky,\n883 F.3d 941, 948 (7th Cir. 2018); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). We re-\nview de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment,\nconsidering the facts in a light favorable to Lisle and drawing\n\f14 No. 18-1595\n\nall reasonable inferences in his favor. Horton, 883 F.3d at 948.\nAt this stage, we may not assess the credibility of the wit-\nnesses or balance the weight of conflicting evidence. Palmer v.\nFranz, 928 F.3d 560, 565 (7th Cir. 2019) (reversing summary\njudgment).\n The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual pun-\nishments that involve the unnecessary and wanton infliction\nof pain. Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 346 (1981). The pro-\nhibition also includes acts “totally without penological justifi-\ncation.” Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 737 (2002), quoting Rhodes,\n452 U.S. at 346. This prohibition reaches wanton infliction of\npain and deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs\nof prisoners. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976); Petties v.\nCarter, 836 F.3d 722, 727–28 (7th Cir. 2016) (en banc).\n Lisle’s claim against Nurse South lies at the intersection of\ndeliberate and pointless infliction of psychological injury and\ndeliberate indifference in medical care. In ordinary medical\ncare cases under the Eighth Amendment, “we perform a two-\nstep analysis, first examining whether a plaintiff suffered\nfrom an objectively serious medical condition, and then deter-\nmining whether the individual defendant was deliberately in-\ndifferent to that condition.” Petties, 836 F.3d at 727–28, citing\nFarmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). In applying this\ntest, “we look at the totality of an inmate’s medical care when\nconsidering whether that care evidences deliberate indiffer-\nence to serious medical needs.” Petties, 836 F.3d at 728–29.\n At the first step, the risk of suicide is an objectively serious\nmedical condition, and it is well established that inmates have\nthe right to be free from deliberate indifference to this risk\nwhile in custody. See Estate of Clark v. Walker, 865 F.3d 544, 551\n(7th Cir. 2017) (inmate’s “right to be free from deliberate\n\fNo. 18-1595 15\n\nindifference to his risk of suicide while he was in custody was\nclearly established at the time of his death in 2012”); Woodward\nv. Correctional Medical Servs. of Illinois, Inc., 368 F.3d 917, 926–\n27, 929 (7th Cir. 2004) (jail managers would be guilty of delib-\nerate indifference if they took no precautions against the pos-\nsibility of an inmate’s suicide); Cavalieri v. Shepard, 321 F.3d\n616, 623 (7th Cir. 2003) (“no doubt” the right of an inmate to\nbe free from deliberate indifference to his risk of suicide was\nclearly established in 1998); Hall v. Ryan, 957 F.2d 402, 404–05\n(7th Cir. 1992) (“It was clearly established in 1986 that police\nofficers could not be deliberately indifferent to a detainee who\nis in need of medical attention because of a mental illness or\nwho is a substantial suicide risk.”).\n At the second step, “[w]here the harm at issue is a suicide\nor attempted suicide, the second, subjective component of an\nEighth Amendment claim requires a dual showing that the\ndefendant: (1) subjectively knew the prisoner was at substan-\ntial risk of committing suicide and (2) intentionally disre-\ngarded the risk.” Collins v. Seeman, 462 F.3d 757, 761 (7th Cir.\n2006). This requires “more than mere or gross negligence, but\nless than purposeful infliction of harm.” Matos v. O'Sullivan,\n335 F.3d 553, 557 (7th Cir. 2003).\n Proving actual subjective knowledge of the risk is often\ndifficult, see Petties, 836 F.3d at 728, but not here. Nurse South\nwas responsible for monitoring and evaluating Lisle while he\nwas on suicide watch. Lisle met his burden on this half of the\nsubjective prong. 3\n\n\n3 South argues that Lisle was never in any real danger because he was on\nsuicide watch. The argument is both speculative and irrelevant to the\nclaim that her statements were intended to cause him psychological pain.\n\f16 No. 18-1595\n\n Lisle also offered evidence to support the second compo-\nnent of this prong—that South intentionally disregarded the\nrisk of suicide. He need not offer evidence of purposeful in-\nfliction of harm. Here, Lisle alleges that South was deliber-\nately indifferent to his risk of suicide by taunting him for be-\ning unsuccessful and actually encouraging Lisle to kill him-\nself while he was in the infirmary on suicide watch. Assuming\nLisle’s account is true, as we must, South’s statements could\nbe deemed cruel infliction of mental pain and deliberate in-\ndifference to his risk of suicide, making summary judgment\nimproper.\n The district court granted summary judgment, quoting\nour statement that, “Standing alone, simple verbal harass-\nment does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment, de-\nprive a prisoner of a protected liberty interest or deny a pris-\noner equal protection of the laws.” DeWalt v. Carter, 224 F.3d\n\n\nThat alleged pain did not depend on Lisle’s ability to follow through on\nhis suicidal intent. See Edwards v. Snyder, 478 F.3d 827, 831 (7th Cir. 2007)\n(reversing dismissal; prisoner’s receipt of some medical care does not au-\ntomatically defeat claim of deliberate indifference; fact-finder could infer\nintentional mistreatment was likely to seriously aggravate a medical con-\ndition); see also Jordan v. Gardner, 986 F.2d 1521, 1526 (9th Cir. 1993) (find-\ning deliberate indifference to female inmate’s psychological vulnerabili-\nties when cross-gender searches exacerbated symptoms of “pre-existing\nmental conditions”). Also, unfortunately, there is no guarantee an inmate\nis safe from the risk of suicide while on suicide watch. Suicide-prevention\nmeasures reduce opportunities to commit suicide, but according to a 2010\nstudy conducted by the National Institute of Corrections, about 7.5% of\ninmates who committed suicide in 2005 and 2006 were on suicide watch.\nNational Institute of Corrections, U.S. Department of Justice, National\nStudy of Jail Suicide 20 Years Later, https://info.nicic.gov/nicrp/sys-\ntem/files/024308.pdf at page 27, April 2010.\n\fNo. 18-1595 17\n\n607, 612 (7th Cir. 2000) (officer allegedly used racially and sex-\nually derogatory language). Since DeWalt, however, we have\nsaid that its language was too broad, explaining: “The propo-\nsition that verbal harassment cannot amount to cruel and un-\nusual punishment is incorrect.” Beal v. Foster, 803 F.3d 356, 357\n(7th Cir. 2015).\n Our analysis in Hughes and Beal confirms that the “simple\nverbal harassment” language of DeWalt would not preclude a\nreasonable jury from finding deliberate indifference here. In\nHughes v. Scott, 816 F.3d 955 (7th Cir. 2016), we reversed dis-\nmissal of an inmate’s claim where he had been committed in-\nvoluntarily to a facility for individuals suffering from mental\ndisorders. The plaintiff alleged that the staff called him “igno-\nrant,” “stupid,” and a “moron.” Id. at 957. They also told him\nhis life would go better if he stopped filing grievances about\nhis treatment at the facility. We distinguished DeWalt and de-\ntermined that the alleged statements to Hughes went beyond\nsimple verbal harassment because of his vulnerability: “Just\nas police when interrogating children are held to understand\nthe mental and psychological differences between adults and\nchildrenYso staff of an institution that houses and treats per-\nsons suffering from mental disorders should be held to un-\nderstand that they are dealing with psychologically impaired\npersons.” Id. at 957 (internal citation omitted).\n In Beal v. Foster, a male inmate brought an Eighth Amend-\nment claim against a male officer who he claimed made sexual\ninnuendos about him in front of other inmates. 803 F.3d at\n358. The district court dismissed on the theory that the state-\nments were simple verbal harassment. We reversed. The\nguard’s statements and behavior could have been understood\nby other inmates as implying Beal was homosexual. Beal\n\f18 No. 18-1595\n\nfeared an increased risk of sexual assaults by other inmates,\nand could have inflicted “significant psychological harm on\nhim” in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Id. at 359.\n In support of this conclusion, Beal used hypotheticals to\nshow that verbal harassment can rise to a level that violates\nthe Eighth Amendment. For instance, it would be cruel and\nunusual for a correctional officer to tell an inmate with a se-\nvere headache that the doctor had told the officer the inmate\nactually had terminal brain cancer. Id. at 357. Or suppose a\nguard tells an inmate falsely that his family has been killed in\na car crash. Id. These classic examples would violate the\nEighth Amendment despite the lack of physical abuse. In\nother words, “the alleged pain [sufficient to constitute cruel\npunishment] may be physical or psychological.” Id. at 357–58,\nquoting Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012);\nsee also Jordan v. Gardner, 986 F.2d 1521, 1528 (9th Cir. 1993)\n(en banc) (affirming permanent injunction against cross-gen-\nder searches of female inmates; prison officials acted with de-\nliberate indifference to harm that cross-gender clothed body\nsearches were likely to cause female inmates who had been\nvictims of sexual abuse).\n With the understanding that the Eighth Amendment also\nprotects psychologically vulnerable inmates against psycho-\nlogical pain deliberately inflicted by correctional officers,\nNurse South’s alleged statements, if made, went beyond\n“simple verbal harassment.” She is alleged to have taunted\nand encouraged an inmate known to be suicidal and in the\nmidst of a mental health crisis to take his own life. As his\nnurse on suicide watch, she was uniquely situated to aggra-\nvate Lisle’s condition by using her specialized knowledge to\ntarget his psychological vulnerabilities, causing him\n\fNo. 18-1595 19\n\npsychological pain. Nurse South denies making these state-\nments, as noted, but the factual disagreement simply under-\nscores the issues of material fact to be decided at trial.\n We are not persuaded by Nurse South’s attempts to distin-\nguish Beal and Hughes. She points out that Beal involved sex-\nual harassment and fear of sexual attacks. Thus it was not\n“simple verbal harassment” because it involved the danger of\nexposing the inmate to sexual assault. We do not see a consti-\ntutionally relevant line between vulnerability to sexual at-\ntacks and vulnerability to suicide. In both situations, prison\nstaff would be exploiting a known vulnerability to create a\ndanger or harm that cannot have any legitimate penological\npurpose.\n South also points out that Hughes and Beal reversed dis-\nmissals on the pleadings rather than after summary judg-\nment. Such differences in procedural posture can be im-\nportant, but not for this question of law. See also Olson v.\nBloomberg, 339 F.3d 730, 737–38 (8th Cir. 2003) (affirming de-\nnial of summary judgment; reasonable jury could infer delib-\nerate indifference to risk of suicide where correctional officer\nsaid, “you do what you got to do,” when inmate said he\nwould hang himself).\n Finally, Nurse South points to the medical care she pro-\nvided to help Lisle while he was on suicide watch as evidence\nthat she was not deliberately indifferent to his risk of suicide.\nFor instance, she checked his vital signs regularly, performed\nneurological examinations, and requested an examination by\na mental health physician. This evidence may well be power-\nful at trial, but it is not conclusive as a matter of law on a mo-\ntion for summary judgment. Evidence of “some medical care\ndoes not automatically defeat a claim of deliberate\n\f20 No. 18-1595\n\nindifference if a fact finder could infer the treatment was ‘so\nblatantly inappropriate as to evidence intentional mistreat-\nment likely to seriously aggravate’ a medical condition.” Ed-\nwards v. Snyder, 478 F.3d 827, 831 (7th Cir. 2007), quoting\nSnipes v. DeTella, 95 F.3d 586, 592 (7th Cir. 1996). Encouraging\na suicidal inmate to kill himself, if that in fact happened,\nwould fit this description.\n We intend this holding to be narrow. Repugnant words,\nlike those alleged in DeWalt, will seldom rise to an Eighth\nAmendment violation. As we acknowledged in Beal, “most\nverbal harassment by jail or prison guards does not rise to the\nlevel of cruel and unusual punishment.” 803 F.3d at 358. Re-\nlationships between prisoners and prison staff are not always\nmarked by genteel language and good manners. The Eighth\nAmendment nevertheless can apply to an extreme case where\nmedical staff use an inmate’s known psychological vulnera-\nbility to cause psychological anguish.\n On remand the district court may need to consider what\nimpact, if any, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e) may have on these claims.\nSection 1997e(e) provides: “No Federal civil action may be\nbrought by a prisoner confined in a jail, prison, or other cor-\nrectional facility, for mental or emotional injury suffered\nwhile in custody without a prior showing of physical injury\nor the commission of a sexual act.” We have read this provi-\nsion to apply only to compensatory damages, not nominal or\npunitive damages involving no physical injury. Calhoun v. De-\nTella, 319 F.3d 936, 941 (7th Cir. 2003). We are not alone in in-\nterpreting § 1997e(e) this way. See Thompson v. Carter, 284 F.3d\n411, 418 (2d Cir. 2002) (punitive damages for Eighth Amend-\nment violations not barred); Oliver v. Keller, 289 F.3d 623, 630\n(9th Cir. 2002) (punitive damages for constitutional violation\n\fNo. 18-1595 21\n\nnot barred); Doe v. Delie, 257 F.3d 309, 314 (3d Cir. 2001)\n(“§ 1997e(e) does not bar claims seeking nominal damages to\nvindicate constitutional rights, nor claims seeking punitive\ndamages to deter or punish egregious violations of constitu-\ntional rights”); Searles v. Van Bebber, 251 F.3d 869, 881 (10th Cir.\n2001) (“salient fact is that Congress simply did not choose to\nprovide a restriction on punitive damages”).\n C. Equal Protection\n Lisle next claims Lieutenants Samuel and Brookman vio-\nlated his Fourteenth Amendment rights by placing him in\nsegregation but not his white cellmate. “Prisoners are pro-\ntected under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth\nAmendment from invidious discrimination based on race.”\nWolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974). Protection from\ndisparate treatment based upon race does not vanish merely\nbecause a person is incarcerated. Id. at 555.\n To avoid summary judgment on this claim, Lisle needed\nto come forward with evidence that would allow a reasonable\njury to infer that the defendants intentionally treated him dif-\nferently because of his race. In Ortiz v. Werner Enterprises, Inc.,\n834 F.3d 760 (7th Cir. 2016), our opinion explained that courts\ndeciding whether a defendant acted with a discriminatory\nmotive (in Ortiz, an employment decision) should avoid get-\nting entangled by formal methods and distinctions between\ndirect and circumstantial evidence. Instead, we explained, the\nstandard is whether all the evidence “would permit a reason-\nable factfinder to conclude that plaintiff’s race, ethnicity, sex,\nreligion, or other proscribed factor caused the discharge or\nother adverse employment action.” Id. at 765. The same rea-\nsoning and standard apply to a claim of intentional and un-\nconstitutional race discrimination by prison officials.\n\f22 No. 18-1595\n\n If the disciplinary decisions by Lieutenant Brookman (per-\nhaps aided by Lieutenant Samuel) were motivated by race,\nthat would violate the Equal Protection Clause. Brown v. Budz,\n398 F.3d 904, 916–17 (7th Cir. 2005); see also Harris v. Greer,\n750 F.2d 617, 618 (7th Cir. 1984) (“A policy of deliberate racial\nsegregation of prisoners would raise serious questions under\nthe equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”);\nWilliams v. Lane, 851 F.2d 867, 881–82 (7th Cir. 1988) (unequal\ntreatment of inmates without rational relation to legitimate\npenal interest violates Equal Protection).\n Lisle, however, has not presented evidence that would al-\nlow a jury to infer reasonably that Lieutenants Samuel or\nBrookman acted based on racial animus. Starting first with\nSamuel, nothing in the record could lead a reasonable jury to\ndetermine that he even had the authority to decide that Lisle\nwould be placed in disciplinary segregation and his cellmate\nwould not. The disciplinary charges for Lisle and his cellmate\nwere both signed by an officer who is not a party in this action.\nSamuel’s only involvement in Lisle’s segregation was that he\nescorted him there pending his disciplinary hearing.\n Lieutenant Brookman served as one of two members of the\nAdjustment Committee that oversaw Lisle’s disciplinary\nhearing. Lisle claims Brookman denied him the right to call a\nwitness during the disciplinary hearing because Lisle is black.\nLisle introduced no evidence, though, suggesting that Brook-\nman’s failure to call Samuel was based on race or that Brook-\nman permitted similarly situated white inmates to call wit-\nnesses while not allowing black inmates to do so. Undisputed\nevidence instead indicates the decision was based on the al-\nleged threats and abuse that the correctional officers appar-\nently found credible. In this instance, correctional officers\n\fNo. 18-1595 23\n\nbelieved the white inmate, not the black inmate. Without\nmore evidence of racial motive, the officers’ judgments about\nwhom to believe are not sufficient to allow a jury to infer racial\nbias. Lisle’s claim of race discrimination is supported only by\nspeculation and conjecture, which is not enough to survive\nsummary judgment. Boston v. U.S. Steel Corp., 816 F.3d 455,\n466 (7th Cir. 2016). We affirm the district court’s grant of sum-\nmary judgment on Lisle’s equal protection claims.\n D. Deprivation of Liberty Without Due Process\n Finally, the district court correctly granted summary judg-\nment on the due process claim against Lieutenant Brookman.\nWhen an inmate raises a due process claim for a disciplinary\nproceeding, he must demonstrate: (1) the deprivation of a lib-\nerty interest; and (2) the procedures he was afforded were\nconstitutionally deficient. Scruggs v. Jordan, 485 F.3d 934, 939\n(7th Cir. 2007). Lisle fails at the first step, so we do not address\nwhether the procedures were constitutionally deficient.\n Lisle’s claimed liberty interest was avoiding assignment to\na segregation cell. Avoiding segregation can constitute a pro-\ntected liberty interest, but the facts matter. Hardaway v. Mey-\nerhoff, 734 F.3d 740, 743 (7th Cir. 2013), citing Marion v. Colum-\nbia Correction Inst., 559 F.3d 693, 697 (7th Cir. 2009). This inter-\nest is triggered only when the confinement imposes “atypical\nand significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordi-\nnary incidents of prison life.” Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472,\n484 (1995). When considering whether disciplinary segrega-\ntion imposes atypical and significant hardships, we look to\nboth the duration of the segregation and the conditions en-\ndured. Marion, 559 F.3d at 697.\n\f24 No. 18-1595\n\n First, the duration of segregation was not an atypical or\nsignificant hardship. We have found that, depending on the\nconditions of confinement and whether there were any addi-\ntional punishments, a period of segregation considerably\nshorter than four months may satisfy this requirement. Kervin\nv. Barnes, 787 F.3d 833, 836 (7th Cir. 2015) (collecting cases).\nHowever, we have also found longer durations did not. Mar-\nion, 559 F.3d at 698 (six months of segregation is not such an\nextreme term as to trigger due process rights without more).\nA sentence of four months in segregation for the discovery of\ncontraband is not so atypical and significantly harsh that it\ncreates a liberty interest.\n Second, Lisle has not shown that the conditions of his con-\nfinement in segregation themselves imposed atypical and sig-\nnificant hardships. Lisle needed to show that the conditions\nof his confinement in his segregated cell deviated substan-\ntially from the ordinary conditions of prison life. Sandin, 515\nU.S. at 486 (inmates must demonstrate that punishment con-\nstituted dramatic departure from basic conditions of prison\nlife to present atypical and significant hardship such that it\nwould create liberty interest); Kervin, 787 F.3d at 836 (“the crit-\nical question is how far the treatment of the complaining in-\nmate deviates from [the] ordinary conditions” of a high-secu-\nrity prison and the conditions under which prisoner is actu-\nally held). In short, if the disciplinary measures do not “sub-\nstantially worsen the conditions of confinement” of an in-\nmate, then he has not been deprived of a protected liberty in-\nterest. Miller v. Dobier, 634 F.3d 412, 414–15 (7th Cir. 2011).\n We agree with the district court that Lisle did not offer ev-\nidence that would allow a reasonable jury to find the condi-\ntions of his segregation imposed atypical and significant\n\fNo. 18-1595 25\n\nhardships. The vague description of his cell, including rust on\nthe bars and “corroded feces” in the toilet, does not itself re-\nveal much. Regardless, a jury could not reasonably infer that\nthese conditions were unique to cells in the segregation unit\nor that these conditions caused Lisle any significant hardship.\nLisle is correct that we do not find conditions are typical and\nacceptable merely because they do not rise to the most ex-\ntreme conditions, but he needed to offer some evidence that\nwould allow a jury to determine that the conditions in segre-\ngation deviated substantially from ordinary conditions of his\nconfinement.\n Lisle further argues that placing an inmate in a cell that\nexacerbates his depression and suicidal urges without provid-\ning a crisis team implicates his liberty interest. We need not\ndecide whether this is correct because the record does not re-\nflect Lisle’s mental health crisis was exacerbated by the con-\nditions of his confinement. Instead, the record shows Lisle at-\ntributes his frustration with the disciplinary hearing and the\ngrievance process as the trigger for his worsening mental\nhealth.\n * * *\n To sum up, we REVERSE summary judgment for Nurse\nSouth on the Eighth Amendment claim based on her alleged\ntaunts. On the Batson claim, we VACATE the portions of the\njudgment based on the trial verdict and REMAND for addi-\ntional findings on the credibility of the defendants’ race-neu-\ntral explanations for their peremptory strikes of black pro-\nspective jurors, and for such further proceedings as are\nneeded consistent with this opinion, which may include a\n\f26 No. 18-1595\n\nnew trial on the claims that were tried. In all other respects\nthe judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 4\n\n\n\n\n4 Lisle’s deliberate indifference claim against the remaining defendants\nfor allegedly failing to address his grievances was not briefed on appeal\nand thus waived. United States v. Webster, 775 F.3d 897, 904 (7th Cir. 2015)\n(arguments not raised in party’s opening brief are waived); see also Ow-\nens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 953 (7th Cir. 2011) (mere mishandling of pris-\noner’s grievance does not support claim).\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Steven Lisle, Jr. v. William Welborn\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-08-01\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-1595\\nSTEVEN D. LISLE, JR.,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n v.\\n\\nWILLIAM WELBORN, et al.,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Southern District of Illinois.\\n No. 3:15-CV-00965 — Michael J. Reagan, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED MARCH 29, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 1, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before HAMILTON, BARRETT, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.\\n HAMILTON, Circuit Judge. This appeal presents issues stem-\\nming from a prison’s discipline of a prisoner and his later su-\\nicide attempts. The story began in 2014 when correctional of-\\nficers at the Menard Correctional Facility found contraband\\nalcohol in the cell of plaintiff Steven D. Lisle, Jr. Lisle’s cell-\\nmate at first took responsibility for the contraband but later\\nrecanted outside of Lisle’s presence. He said instead that Lisle\\nhad been abusing him and had forced him to take the blame\\n\\f2 No. 18-1595\\n\\nfor the alcohol. In disciplinary proceedings, Lisle later asked\\nto call a witness to testify about his cellmate’s initial admis-\\nsions. His requests were ignored. Lisle, who is black, was sen-\\ntenced to four months in disciplinary segregation. His cell-\\nmate, who was white, was not disciplined.\\n While in segregation, Lisle attempted to commit suicide\\nthree times. His third attempt was nearly successful, and he\\nwas placed on suicide watch in the prison infirmary. While\\nthere, Lisle claims, a nurse taunted him for his failed suicide\\nattempts and encouraged him to try again. Lisle filed this suit\\nalleging that he was punished based on his race, that he was\\ndeprived of liberty without due process of law, and that the\\nprison staff’s conduct in the wake of his mental health crisis—\\nincluding the nurse’s statements—amounted to cruel and un-\\nusual punishment.\\n The district court granted summary judgment on several\\nclaims but held a jury trial on Lisle’s claims for deliberate in-\\ndifference to a serious medical need. During jury selection,\\ndefense lawyers used peremptory strikes to remove three of\\nthe four black potential jurors. After the jury was selected, but\\nbefore it was sworn and the venire released, Lisle’s counsel\\nobjected pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986),\\nchallenging the use of peremptory strikes against the black\\njurors. The judge denied the objection as untimely.\\n Lisle appeals the summary judgment decision and seeks a\\nnew trial based on his Batson claim. We agree that his Batson\\nclaim was timely, and we cannot find that the erroneous de-\\nnial was harmless. We remand for an evidentiary hearing on\\nthe Batson claim and, if necessary, a new trial on all claims that\\nwere tried. We also reverse summary judgment for the nurse\\n\\fNo. 18-1595 3\\n\\non the taunting claim. We affirm all other aspects of the judg-\\nment.\\nI. Factual & Procedural Background\\n A. Cell Search & Disciplinary Proceeding\\n To the extent we review the partial grant of summary\\njudgment, we review the facts in the light most favorable to\\nLisle as the non-moving party, giving him the benefit of con-\\nflicts in the evidence. Spaine v. Community Contacts, Inc., 756\\nF.3d 542, 544 (7th Cir. 2014). Steven D. Lisle, Jr. was an inmate\\nat the Menard Correctional Center in Illinois, where he shared\\na cell with another inmate. On August 12, 2014, when Lisle\\nwas at the prison gym, correctional officers searched his cell\\nand found contraband: a trash bag of liquid that contained 7%\\nalcohol. Two correctional officers took Lisle to segregation to\\nawait a disciplinary hearing.\\n On the way to the segregation unit, he crossed paths with\\nhis cellmate, who had also been at the gym when the search\\noccurred. Lisle asked his cellmate if he was going to “take his\\nweight” (claim responsibility) for the contraband. The cell-\\nmate said yes and told Lisle that he had “already told them\\nwhatever they found” in the cell was his. Lieutenant Michael\\nSamuel was within earshot of this conversation. Lisle told\\nLieutenant Samuel that he was going to call him as a witness\\nat his disciplinary hearing. Samuel told Lisle he would testify.\\n Outside of Lisle’s presence, though, his cellmate later re-\\ncanted. He said he had claimed the alcohol was his only be-\\ncause Lisle had put him “through some serious hell.” The cell-\\nmate revealed extensive bruising all over his body that he\\nclaimed was the result of Lisle’s physical and sexual abuse.\\nHe expressed fear for his life. The cellmate was placed in\\n\\f4 No. 18-1595\\n\\nprotective custody and a rape kit was used to test him. He was\\nnever placed in segregation, and the Adjustment Committee\\nfound him not guilty for the contraband. Lieutenant Brook-\\nman testified in this case that Lisle was not informed of the\\nallegations his cellmate made because disclosing to an alleged\\nabuser that his victim has reported the abuse is “what gets\\npeople hurt in prison.”\\n Once Lisle was placed in segregation, a correctional officer\\nprovided him with a copy of the disciplinary report outlining\\nthe charged violations. Lisle asked for a pen so that he could\\nsign the report and ask to have Lieutenant Samuel testify at\\nthe disciplinary hearing. The officer refused, so Lisle made an\\noral request that Samuel be called to testify. The next day,\\nLisle met with his counselor and again made an oral request\\nto call Lieutenant Samuel as a witness. His counselor for-\\nwarded the request to Internal Affairs, which in turn faxed the\\nrequest to the Adjustment Committee.\\n Two days after the search, the disciplinary hearing was\\nheld before the Adjustment Committee comprised of Lieuten-\\nant Kent Brookman and another official whom Lisle has not\\nsued. Lieutenant Samuel did not attend the disciplinary hear-\\ning. Brookman indicated he had already spoken with Samuel\\nand would do so again. 1\\n The Adjustment Committee found Lisle guilty and sen-\\ntenced him to four months of disciplinary segregation and\\nfour months of reduced privileges, such as commissary re-\\nstrictions, and six months of contact visit restriction. Despite\\nLisle’s request that Samuel testify at least three times, the\\n\\n 1 It is not clear from the record whether Brookman actually spoke with\\n\\nSamuel or not. For purposes of summary judgment, we assume he did not.\\n\\fNo. 18-1595 5\\n\\nAdjustment Committee’s final report indicated that he had\\nnot requested a witness.\\n B. Lisle’s Mental Health Crisis\\n While in segregation, Lisle attempted to commit suicide\\nwith a makeshift rope three times over the course of three\\ndays. He claimed that being denied the chance to present a\\nwitness at his hearing and the slow response to the post-hear-\\ning grievances he filed caused him to become depressed. He\\nrepeatedly asked for a mental health and crisis team but did\\nnot receive intervening assistance before his third suicide at-\\ntempt.\\n Lisle described his segregation cell as being poorly venti-\\nlated, with rusty bars and with corroded feces in the toilet. He\\nwas not given a brush to clean the toilet, and he had access to\\nfewer cleaning supplies due to his loss of commissary privi-\\nleges. He also had fewer privileges than when he was in gen-\\neral population, such as loss of access to the gym and fewer\\nopportunities to go outside or shower. He had a cellmate\\nthroughout his entire stay in “segregation.”\\n Lisle described his first two suicide attempts in a deposi-\\ntion taken April 25, 2017. He said his first suicide attempt on\\nSeptember 3, 2014 failed when the makeshift rope he tied\\naround his neck snapped under his weight. Lisle alleges Lieu-\\ntenant Welborn and Nurse Reeves witnessed the attempt.\\nLisle claims he informed them he was attempting to kill him-\\nself and handed Reeves a suicide note. According to Lisle,\\nthey both walked away without a word.\\n The next day, Lisle again attempted suicide unsuccess-\\nfully, this time, he says, in the presence of correctional officer\\nChristopher McClure and another nurse, Jodi Hormann. Lisle\\n\\f6 No. 18-1595\\n\\nagain claims he handed the nurse a suicide note and told them\\nboth that he intended to kill himself. In a repeat of the day\\nbefore, Lisle says, the two prison staff members simply\\nwalked away. Before Lisle attempted suicide a third time, he\\ngave another officer, Cale Young, a third suicide note and in-\\nformed the officer that he was going to attempt suicide again.\\nAccording to Lisle, Young put the note in his pocket and\\nwalked away.\\n The night of September 5, 2014, Lisle attempted to commit\\nsuicide a third time while his cellmate was asleep. This time,\\na correctional officer and a medical staff member saw him\\nhanging in his cell and yelled for his cellmate to help. His cell-\\nmate helped the officers support Lisle by his legs to give the\\nofficers time to remove the rope from his neck. Lisle was taken\\nto the infirmary, where the medical staff noted he had injuries\\non his neck that appeared several days old, consistent with\\nprior suicide attempts. He remained in the infirmary and was\\nplaced on suicide watch.\\n On the instructions of the medical director, Lisle was\\nplaced on “strip cell suicide watch,” which meant he was not\\nprovided a mattress and could use only a suicide-resistant\\nblanket. He was also checked every ten minutes, with vital\\nsigns checked every two hours. Jana South was a nurse work-\\ning in the infirmary when Lisle was admitted. Lisle testified\\nthat when Nurse South evaluated him a few hours later, she\\nrepeatedly mocked him for failing to kill himself. She la-\\nmented that Lisle had not succeeded in his suicide attempts,\\ntold him he should have done it “properly,” and said he\\nshould “do a better job next time.” Later, Lisle also com-\\nplained that his back hurt from sleeping on the steel slab with-\\nout a mattress and requested a blanket because his cell was\\n\\fNo. 18-1595 7\\n\\ntoo cold. South taunted him, saying that if he wanted a mat-\\ntress, he should not be on suicide watch and that he should\\nnot care about being cold or uncomfortable since he was try-\\ning to kill himself. South denied making any of these state-\\nments.\\n Despite the dispute about what Nurse South said, it is un-\\ndisputed that she continued to provide care to Lisle. She eval-\\nuated him several times, took his vital signs, and conducted\\nat least one neurological examination. After her first evalua-\\ntion of Lisle, South also called a mental health physician to\\nevaluate Lisle, which occurred the next morning. Lisle re-\\nmained in the infirmary for six days.\\n C. Partial Summary Judgment and Trial\\n Lisle sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, bringing five counts\\nagainst fourteen prison staff members. First, he claimed Lieu-\\ntenant Brookman, as chair of the Adjustment Committee, de-\\nprived him of a protected liberty interest without due process\\nof law when he failed to call Lieutenant Samuel to testify.\\nLisle also alleged that Lieutenants Samuel and Brookman and\\nthe second officer who brought Lisle to segregation discrimi-\\nnated against him based on his race. Count III alleged an\\nEighth Amendment claim against Reeves, Welborn, Hor-\\nmann, McClure, Young, and South, for their failure to obtain\\nmedical help for Lisle when he was suicidal, and for Nurse\\nSouth’s verbal abuse of Lisle when he was on suicide watch.\\nHe also sued Nurse South based on his experiences in the in-\\nfirmary and her alleged refusal to call a doctor when he re-\\nquested one. Finally, he alleged that several prison officials\\nviolated his constitutional rights in their handling of multiple\\ngrievances he had filed.\\n\\f8 No. 18-1595\\n\\n The defendants moved for summary judgment. The dis-\\ntrict court granted the motion in part on the due process claim\\nbecause Lisle failed to show that confinement in segregation\\ndeprived him of a protected liberty interest. The district court\\nalso granted summary judgment for the equal protection de-\\nfendants, finding no evidence of racial motive in any defend-\\nant’s actions.\\n The district court dismissed the deliberate indifference\\nclaim against Nurse South for her conduct in the infirmary.\\nThe district court reasoned that under DeWalt v. Carter, 224\\nF.3d 607, 612 (7th Cir. 2000), the alleged taunting would be\\n“reprehensible,” but would amount only to “simple verbal\\nharassment,” which would not amount to cruel and unusual\\npunishment. The court explained: “though South may have\\nmade statements suggesting Plaintiff kill himself, she none-\\ntheless did her job and treated Plaintiff. Defendant South\\ntherefore did not exhibit deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s\\nrisk of suicide.” The court denied summary judgment on the\\nclaims of deliberate indifference against the prison staff mem-\\nbers for their alleged failure to act when Lisle was suicidal.\\n The court granted summary judgment dismissing most of\\nLisle’s conditions-of-confinement claims, but the court denied\\nsummary judgment on his claim that Nurse South refused to\\ncall a doctor. Finally, the court dismissed the claims against\\nvarious prison officials for their failure to act on the griev-\\nances he submitted because Lisle failed to provide sufficient\\nevidence to support these claims.\\n The surviving claims were tried to a jury. During voir dire,\\nonly four African-American veniremen were called. The two\\nteams of defense counsel used three of their six peremptory\\nstrikes against black panel members. Just after the jurors were\\n\\fNo. 18-1595 9\\n\\nselected, but before they were sworn and the venire released,\\nLisle’s attorney objected pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky, 476\\nU.S. 79 (1986), that those three strikes were racially motivated.\\nThe district court denied Lisle’s objection as untimely. The\\ncourt told Lisle he “should have made [the objections] while\\nwe were doing it. I think you waived at this juncture. We can\\nmake a record. I know we do have an African American on\\nthe jury.”\\n The court then addressed defense counsel, explaining that\\nif they wanted “to make a responseY I am happy to listen to\\nrace neutral responsesY. It is probably a good opportunity for\\nyou to respond if you have a race neutral response you want\\nto give or you don’t have to respond at all.” Counsel for the\\nmedical defendants briefly explained that they struck two\\nblack jurors who had close family members who had been in-\\ncarcerated. Counsel doubted those jurors’ abilities to be fair\\nto the defendants in this case, despite the jurors’ assertions\\nthat the family members’ experiences would not affect their\\ndecision. The judge said that the reasons proffered were race\\nneutral, but he did not make any express finding that he be-\\nlieved the offered reasons were honest.\\n After a three-day trial, a jury found for Lisle on the claim\\nthat Reeves, Welborn, Hormann, and McClure were deliber-\\nately indifferent to his suicide attempts, but the jury awarded\\nhim only $300 in compensatory damages. The jury found in\\nfavor of Nurse South on the claim that she denied Lisle a phy-\\nsician. The jury also found for Young on the claim of deliber-\\nate indifference to Lisle’s suicide attempt and for Hill on the\\nclaim that she was deliberately indifferent to a serious risk of\\nharm to Lisle by ignoring his grievances.\\n\\f10 No. 18-1595\\n\\n On appeal, Lisle argues that his Batson challenge was\\ntimely and that summary judgment for the defendants was\\nimproper on some claims: whether South’s comments vio-\\nlated the Eighth Amendment, whether Lieutenants Brookman\\nand Samuel violated the Equal Protection Clause, and\\nwhether Brookman deprived him of liberty without due pro-\\ncess when he refused to call Samuel as a witness.\\nII. Analysis\\n We begin with the district court’s ruling on the Batson chal-\\nlenge before analyzing its decisions to grant summary judg-\\nment on the Eighth Amendment, equal protection, and due\\nprocess claims.\\n A. Batson Challenge\\n In Batson v. Kentucky, the Supreme Court held that “the\\nState denies a black defendant equal protection of the laws\\nwhen it puts him on trial before a jury from which members\\nof his race have been purposefully excluded.” 476 U.S. 79, 85\\n(1986). Batson has been extended to civil cases, so peremptory\\nstrikes simply may not be used on account of race. Foster v.\\nChatman, 136 S. Ct. 1737, 1747 (2016) (“The ‘Constitution for-\\nbids striking even a single prospective juror for a discrimina-\\ntory purpose.’”), quoting Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472, 478\\n(2008); Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., 500 U.S. 614, 631\\n(1991) (Batson applies to civil cases).\\n A Batson claim is analyzed in a three-step process in the\\ntrial court. First, if a party suspects peremptory strikes are be-\\ning used for discriminatory reasons, he must object and make\\na prima facie case of racial discrimination. “[T]he burden at\\nthe prima facie stage is low, requiring only circumstances rais-\\ning a suspicion that discrimination occurred, even where\\n\\fNo. 18-1595 11\\n\\nthose circumstances are insufficient to indicate that it is more\\nlikely than not that the challenges were used to discriminate.”\\nUnited States v. Stephens, 421 F.3d 503, 512 (7th Cir. 2005). Sec-\\nond, if the court finds the party has made a prima facie show-\\ning of discrimination, the burden shifts to the striking party\\nto provide a race-neutral reason for the strike. Flowers v. Mis-\\nsissippi, 139 S. Ct. 2228, 2241 (2019). Third, the trial judge must\\nthen “determine whether the Y stated reasons were the actual\\nreasons or instead were a pretext for discrimination.” Id.\\n The district court rejected Lisle’s Batson challenge as un-\\ntimely. Trial judges have considerable flexibility and discre-\\ntion in managing jury selection, including how they provide\\na reasonable opportunity to raise Batson challenges. A reason-\\nable opportunity to raise a Batson challenge is essential. This\\nBatson challenge was not untimely. We have said that “[c]on-\\ntemporaneous objection is imperative with respect to Batson\\nclaims,” United States v. Chandler, 12 F.3d 1427, 1431 (7th Cir.\\n1994), but contemporaneous does not mean instantaneous.\\nRather, “the dismissal of the venire or the swearing of the jury\\nis the presumptive deadline for making Batson challenges.”\\nUnited States v. Williams, 819 F.3d 1026, 1029 (7th Cir. 2016).\\n Lisle’s Batson challenge was timely. He objected within\\nminutes after the third of four black potential jurors was\\nstruck. He objected before the jury was sworn and before the\\ndismissal of the venire. While Batson objections should be\\nraised as early as practicable, the purpose of these challenges\\nand our case law show that an objection to a discriminatory\\nstrike need not occur immediately after a particular strike is\\nmade. After all, “a ‘pattern’ of strikes against black jurors in-\\ncluded in the particular venire might give rise to an inference\\nof discrimination.” Flowers, 139 S. Ct. at 2246, quoting Batson,\\n\\f12 No. 18-1595\\n\\n476 U.S. at 97. The objecting party might not even be aware of\\na violation until several strikes have been made, or even until\\nall peremptory strikes have been exercised by all parties. The\\ntrial judge erred in deeming Lisle’s Batson challenge untimely.\\n We also cannot deem harmless here the erroneous denial\\nof the Batson challenge as untimely. First, a racially motivated\\nstrike of a single juror is forbidden and requires a new trial.\\nFoster, 136 S. Ct. at 1747, quoting Snyder, 552 U.S. at 478. In\\naddition, the trial judge’s sensible effort to “make a record” at\\nthe time fell one critical step short. The judge invited defense\\ncounsel to state for the record race-neutral reasons for their\\nstrikes of the black jurors. They did so, and the judge said they\\nwere indeed race-neutral reasons. The problem is that the\\njudge never took the final step of making a finding on the spot\\nabout the credibility of those reasons. See, e.g., Snyder, 552\\nU.S. at 479 (reversing denial of Batson challenge where trial\\njudge had never made finding on juror’s demeanor or credi-\\nbility of proffered race-neutral reason for strike). And unfor-\\ntunately, counsel did not ask the judge for that one further\\nfinding. While we can glean some information from this rec-\\nord, we have no way to know whether the attorneys were\\ncredible. For example, the record does not show whether sim-\\nilarly situated white jurors were struck for similar reasons,\\nnor did the judge say anything about anyone’s demeanor. 2\\n Because the district court did not make a credibility find-\\ning here, we must remand for further findings and,\\n\\n 2\\n We asked at oral argument whether any peremptory strikes were\\nused on white jurors for similar reasons. Counsel for defendants re-\\nsponded that Juror 9 was white and was also struck because he had a close\\nfamily member who had been incarcerated. The district court, however,\\nnoted on the record that Juror 9 was black. Supp. App. 340.\\n\\fNo. 18-1595 13\\n\\ndepending on the findings, a new trial. Morgan v. City of Chi-\\ncago, 822 F.3d 317, 331 (7th Cir. 2016); United States v. Rutledge,\\n648 F.3d 555, 560 (7th Cir. 2011) (“when we confront an evi-\\ndentiary gap at step three, the ultimate Batson issue cannot be\\nresolved without a remand”). If the district court cannot make\\nthe necessary findings (perhaps because of delay or the vet-\\neran trial judge’s retirement), or if the court ultimately finds\\nthat the stated reasons were not credible, then the case must\\nbe retried. See Rutledge, 648 F.3d at 562 (conviction must be\\nvacated “if the passage of time precludes the district court\\nfrom making such findings, or if it finds that the prosecutor’s\\nreasons are not credible”); United States v. McMath, 559 F.3d\\n657, 666 (7th Cir. 2009) (remand for findings rather than retry-\\ning the case was appropriate remedy in light of court’s failure\\nto make findings on race-neutral reasons when only a year\\nhad passed); see also SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Abbott Labs.,\\n740 F.3d 471, 489 (9th Cir. 2014) (remanding for a new trial\\nafter Batson violation in civil case).\\n B. Cruel and Unusual Punishment Claim Against Nurse South\\n The district court granted summary judgment for Nurse\\nSouth on the ground that simple verbal harassment cannot\\nconstitute cruel and unusual punishment. For purposes of\\nsummary judgment, we must assume South did make the\\nstatements as Lisle claimed, encouraging Lisle to kill himself\\nwhile he was on suicide watch under her care.\\n Summary judgment is appropriate only when the movant\\nshows there is no genuine dispute as to any material facts and\\nis entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Horton v. Pobjecky,\\n883 F.3d 941, 948 (7th Cir. 2018); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). We re-\\nview de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment,\\nconsidering the facts in a light favorable to Lisle and drawing\\n\\f14 No. 18-1595\\n\\nall reasonable inferences in his favor. Horton, 883 F.3d at 948.\\nAt this stage, we may not assess the credibility of the wit-\\nnesses or balance the weight of conflicting evidence. Palmer v.\\nFranz, 928 F.3d 560, 565 (7th Cir. 2019) (reversing summary\\njudgment).\\n The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual pun-\\nishments that involve the unnecessary and wanton infliction\\nof pain. Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 346 (1981). The pro-\\nhibition also includes acts “totally without penological justifi-\\ncation.” Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 737 (2002), quoting Rhodes,\\n452 U.S. at 346. This prohibition reaches wanton infliction of\\npain and deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs\\nof prisoners. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976); Petties v.\\nCarter, 836 F.3d 722, 727–28 (7th Cir. 2016) (en banc).\\n Lisle’s claim against Nurse South lies at the intersection of\\ndeliberate and pointless infliction of psychological injury and\\ndeliberate indifference in medical care. In ordinary medical\\ncare cases under the Eighth Amendment, “we perform a two-\\nstep analysis, first examining whether a plaintiff suffered\\nfrom an objectively serious medical condition, and then deter-\\nmining whether the individual defendant was deliberately in-\\ndifferent to that condition.” Petties, 836 F.3d at 727–28, citing\\nFarmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). In applying this\\ntest, “we look at the totality of an inmate’s medical care when\\nconsidering whether that care evidences deliberate indiffer-\\nence to serious medical needs.” Petties, 836 F.3d at 728–29.\\n At the first step, the risk of suicide is an objectively serious\\nmedical condition, and it is well established that inmates have\\nthe right to be free from deliberate indifference to this risk\\nwhile in custody. See Estate of Clark v. Walker, 865 F.3d 544, 551\\n(7th Cir. 2017) (inmate’s “right to be free from deliberate\\n\\fNo. 18-1595 15\\n\\nindifference to his risk of suicide while he was in custody was\\nclearly established at the time of his death in 2012”); Woodward\\nv. Correctional Medical Servs. of Illinois, Inc., 368 F.3d 917, 926–\\n27, 929 (7th Cir. 2004) (jail managers would be guilty of delib-\\nerate indifference if they took no precautions against the pos-\\nsibility of an inmate’s suicide); Cavalieri v. Shepard, 321 F.3d\\n616, 623 (7th Cir. 2003) (“no doubt” the right of an inmate to\\nbe free from deliberate indifference to his risk of suicide was\\nclearly established in 1998); Hall v. Ryan, 957 F.2d 402, 404–05\\n(7th Cir. 1992) (“It was clearly established in 1986 that police\\nofficers could not be deliberately indifferent to a detainee who\\nis in need of medical attention because of a mental illness or\\nwho is a substantial suicide risk.”).\\n At the second step, “[w]here the harm at issue is a suicide\\nor attempted suicide, the second, subjective component of an\\nEighth Amendment claim requires a dual showing that the\\ndefendant: (1) subjectively knew the prisoner was at substan-\\ntial risk of committing suicide and (2) intentionally disre-\\ngarded the risk.” Collins v. Seeman, 462 F.3d 757, 761 (7th Cir.\\n2006). This requires “more than mere or gross negligence, but\\nless than purposeful infliction of harm.” Matos v. O'Sullivan,\\n335 F.3d 553, 557 (7th Cir. 2003).\\n Proving actual subjective knowledge of the risk is often\\ndifficult, see Petties, 836 F.3d at 728, but not here. Nurse South\\nwas responsible for monitoring and evaluating Lisle while he\\nwas on suicide watch. Lisle met his burden on this half of the\\nsubjective prong. 3\\n\\n\\n3 South argues that Lisle was never in any real danger because he was on\\nsuicide watch. The argument is both speculative and irrelevant to the\\nclaim that her statements were intended to cause him psychological pain.\\n\\f16 No. 18-1595\\n\\n Lisle also offered evidence to support the second compo-\\nnent of this prong—that South intentionally disregarded the\\nrisk of suicide. He need not offer evidence of purposeful in-\\nfliction of harm. Here, Lisle alleges that South was deliber-\\nately indifferent to his risk of suicide by taunting him for be-\\ning unsuccessful and actually encouraging Lisle to kill him-\\nself while he was in the infirmary on suicide watch. Assuming\\nLisle’s account is true, as we must, South’s statements could\\nbe deemed cruel infliction of mental pain and deliberate in-\\ndifference to his risk of suicide, making summary judgment\\nimproper.\\n The district court granted summary judgment, quoting\\nour statement that, “Standing alone, simple verbal harass-\\nment does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment, de-\\nprive a prisoner of a protected liberty interest or deny a pris-\\noner equal protection of the laws.” DeWalt v. Carter, 224 F.3d\\n\\n\\nThat alleged pain did not depend on Lisle’s ability to follow through on\\nhis suicidal intent. See Edwards v. Snyder, 478 F.3d 827, 831 (7th Cir. 2007)\\n(reversing dismissal; prisoner’s receipt of some medical care does not au-\\ntomatically defeat claim of deliberate indifference; fact-finder could infer\\nintentional mistreatment was likely to seriously aggravate a medical con-\\ndition); see also Jordan v. Gardner, 986 F.2d 1521, 1526 (9th Cir. 1993) (find-\\ning deliberate indifference to female inmate’s psychological vulnerabili-\\nties when cross-gender searches exacerbated symptoms of “pre-existing\\nmental conditions”). Also, unfortunately, there is no guarantee an inmate\\nis safe from the risk of suicide while on suicide watch. Suicide-prevention\\nmeasures reduce opportunities to commit suicide, but according to a 2010\\nstudy conducted by the National Institute of Corrections, about 7.5% of\\ninmates who committed suicide in 2005 and 2006 were on suicide watch.\\nNational Institute of Corrections, U.S. Department of Justice, National\\nStudy of Jail Suicide 20 Years Later, https://info.nicic.gov/nicrp/sys-\\ntem/files/024308.pdf at page 27, April 2010.\\n\\fNo. 18-1595 17\\n\\n607, 612 (7th Cir. 2000) (officer allegedly used racially and sex-\\nually derogatory language). Since DeWalt, however, we have\\nsaid that its language was too broad, explaining: “The propo-\\nsition that verbal harassment cannot amount to cruel and un-\\nusual punishment is incorrect.” Beal v. Foster, 803 F.3d 356, 357\\n(7th Cir. 2015).\\n Our analysis in Hughes and Beal confirms that the “simple\\nverbal harassment” language of DeWalt would not preclude a\\nreasonable jury from finding deliberate indifference here. In\\nHughes v. Scott, 816 F.3d 955 (7th Cir. 2016), we reversed dis-\\nmissal of an inmate’s claim where he had been committed in-\\nvoluntarily to a facility for individuals suffering from mental\\ndisorders. The plaintiff alleged that the staff called him “igno-\\nrant,” “stupid,” and a “moron.” Id. at 957. They also told him\\nhis life would go better if he stopped filing grievances about\\nhis treatment at the facility. We distinguished DeWalt and de-\\ntermined that the alleged statements to Hughes went beyond\\nsimple verbal harassment because of his vulnerability: “Just\\nas police when interrogating children are held to understand\\nthe mental and psychological differences between adults and\\nchildrenYso staff of an institution that houses and treats per-\\nsons suffering from mental disorders should be held to un-\\nderstand that they are dealing with psychologically impaired\\npersons.” Id. at 957 (internal citation omitted).\\n In Beal v. Foster, a male inmate brought an Eighth Amend-\\nment claim against a male officer who he claimed made sexual\\ninnuendos about him in front of other inmates. 803 F.3d at\\n358. The district court dismissed on the theory that the state-\\nments were simple verbal harassment. We reversed. The\\nguard’s statements and behavior could have been understood\\nby other inmates as implying Beal was homosexual. Beal\\n\\f18 No. 18-1595\\n\\nfeared an increased risk of sexual assaults by other inmates,\\nand could have inflicted “significant psychological harm on\\nhim” in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Id. at 359.\\n In support of this conclusion, Beal used hypotheticals to\\nshow that verbal harassment can rise to a level that violates\\nthe Eighth Amendment. For instance, it would be cruel and\\nunusual for a correctional officer to tell an inmate with a se-\\nvere headache that the doctor had told the officer the inmate\\nactually had terminal brain cancer. Id. at 357. Or suppose a\\nguard tells an inmate falsely that his family has been killed in\\na car crash. Id. These classic examples would violate the\\nEighth Amendment despite the lack of physical abuse. In\\nother words, “the alleged pain [sufficient to constitute cruel\\npunishment] may be physical or psychological.” Id. at 357–58,\\nquoting Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012);\\nsee also Jordan v. Gardner, 986 F.2d 1521, 1528 (9th Cir. 1993)\\n(en banc) (affirming permanent injunction against cross-gen-\\nder searches of female inmates; prison officials acted with de-\\nliberate indifference to harm that cross-gender clothed body\\nsearches were likely to cause female inmates who had been\\nvictims of sexual abuse).\\n With the understanding that the Eighth Amendment also\\nprotects psychologically vulnerable inmates against psycho-\\nlogical pain deliberately inflicted by correctional officers,\\nNurse South’s alleged statements, if made, went beyond\\n“simple verbal harassment.” She is alleged to have taunted\\nand encouraged an inmate known to be suicidal and in the\\nmidst of a mental health crisis to take his own life. As his\\nnurse on suicide watch, she was uniquely situated to aggra-\\nvate Lisle’s condition by using her specialized knowledge to\\ntarget his psychological vulnerabilities, causing him\\n\\fNo. 18-1595 19\\n\\npsychological pain. Nurse South denies making these state-\\nments, as noted, but the factual disagreement simply under-\\nscores the issues of material fact to be decided at trial.\\n We are not persuaded by Nurse South’s attempts to distin-\\nguish Beal and Hughes. She points out that Beal involved sex-\\nual harassment and fear of sexual attacks. Thus it was not\\n“simple verbal harassment” because it involved the danger of\\nexposing the inmate to sexual assault. We do not see a consti-\\ntutionally relevant line between vulnerability to sexual at-\\ntacks and vulnerability to suicide. In both situations, prison\\nstaff would be exploiting a known vulnerability to create a\\ndanger or harm that cannot have any legitimate penological\\npurpose.\\n South also points out that Hughes and Beal reversed dis-\\nmissals on the pleadings rather than after summary judg-\\nment. Such differences in procedural posture can be im-\\nportant, but not for this question of law. See also Olson v.\\nBloomberg, 339 F.3d 730, 737–38 (8th Cir. 2003) (affirming de-\\nnial of summary judgment; reasonable jury could infer delib-\\nerate indifference to risk of suicide where correctional officer\\nsaid, “you do what you got to do,” when inmate said he\\nwould hang himself).\\n Finally, Nurse South points to the medical care she pro-\\nvided to help Lisle while he was on suicide watch as evidence\\nthat she was not deliberately indifferent to his risk of suicide.\\nFor instance, she checked his vital signs regularly, performed\\nneurological examinations, and requested an examination by\\na mental health physician. This evidence may well be power-\\nful at trial, but it is not conclusive as a matter of law on a mo-\\ntion for summary judgment. Evidence of “some medical care\\ndoes not automatically defeat a claim of deliberate\\n\\f20 No. 18-1595\\n\\nindifference if a fact finder could infer the treatment was ‘so\\nblatantly inappropriate as to evidence intentional mistreat-\\nment likely to seriously aggravate’ a medical condition.” Ed-\\nwards v. Snyder, 478 F.3d 827, 831 (7th Cir. 2007), quoting\\nSnipes v. DeTella, 95 F.3d 586, 592 (7th Cir. 1996). Encouraging\\na suicidal inmate to kill himself, if that in fact happened,\\nwould fit this description.\\n We intend this holding to be narrow. Repugnant words,\\nlike those alleged in DeWalt, will seldom rise to an Eighth\\nAmendment violation. As we acknowledged in Beal, “most\\nverbal harassment by jail or prison guards does not rise to the\\nlevel of cruel and unusual punishment.” 803 F.3d at 358. Re-\\nlationships between prisoners and prison staff are not always\\nmarked by genteel language and good manners. The Eighth\\nAmendment nevertheless can apply to an extreme case where\\nmedical staff use an inmate’s known psychological vulnera-\\nbility to cause psychological anguish.\\n On remand the district court may need to consider what\\nimpact, if any, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e) may have on these claims.\\nSection 1997e(e) provides: “No Federal civil action may be\\nbrought by a prisoner confined in a jail, prison, or other cor-\\nrectional facility, for mental or emotional injury suffered\\nwhile in custody without a prior showing of physical injury\\nor the commission of a sexual act.” We have read this provi-\\nsion to apply only to compensatory damages, not nominal or\\npunitive damages involving no physical injury. Calhoun v. De-\\nTella, 319 F.3d 936, 941 (7th Cir. 2003). We are not alone in in-\\nterpreting § 1997e(e) this way. See Thompson v. Carter, 284 F.3d\\n411, 418 (2d Cir. 2002) (punitive damages for Eighth Amend-\\nment violations not barred); Oliver v. Keller, 289 F.3d 623, 630\\n(9th Cir. 2002) (punitive damages for constitutional violation\\n\\fNo. 18-1595 21\\n\\nnot barred); Doe v. Delie, 257 F.3d 309, 314 (3d Cir. 2001)\\n(“§ 1997e(e) does not bar claims seeking nominal damages to\\nvindicate constitutional rights, nor claims seeking punitive\\ndamages to deter or punish egregious violations of constitu-\\ntional rights”); Searles v. Van Bebber, 251 F.3d 869, 881 (10th Cir.\\n2001) (“salient fact is that Congress simply did not choose to\\nprovide a restriction on punitive damages”).\\n C. Equal Protection\\n Lisle next claims Lieutenants Samuel and Brookman vio-\\nlated his Fourteenth Amendment rights by placing him in\\nsegregation but not his white cellmate. “Prisoners are pro-\\ntected under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth\\nAmendment from invidious discrimination based on race.”\\nWolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974). Protection from\\ndisparate treatment based upon race does not vanish merely\\nbecause a person is incarcerated. Id. at 555.\\n To avoid summary judgment on this claim, Lisle needed\\nto come forward with evidence that would allow a reasonable\\njury to infer that the defendants intentionally treated him dif-\\nferently because of his race. In Ortiz v. Werner Enterprises, Inc.,\\n834 F.3d 760 (7th Cir. 2016), our opinion explained that courts\\ndeciding whether a defendant acted with a discriminatory\\nmotive (in Ortiz, an employment decision) should avoid get-\\nting entangled by formal methods and distinctions between\\ndirect and circumstantial evidence. Instead, we explained, the\\nstandard is whether all the evidence “would permit a reason-\\nable factfinder to conclude that plaintiff’s race, ethnicity, sex,\\nreligion, or other proscribed factor caused the discharge or\\nother adverse employment action.” Id. at 765. The same rea-\\nsoning and standard apply to a claim of intentional and un-\\nconstitutional race discrimination by prison officials.\\n\\f22 No. 18-1595\\n\\n If the disciplinary decisions by Lieutenant Brookman (per-\\nhaps aided by Lieutenant Samuel) were motivated by race,\\nthat would violate the Equal Protection Clause. Brown v. Budz,\\n398 F.3d 904, 916–17 (7th Cir. 2005); see also Harris v. Greer,\\n750 F.2d 617, 618 (7th Cir. 1984) (“A policy of deliberate racial\\nsegregation of prisoners would raise serious questions under\\nthe equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”);\\nWilliams v. Lane, 851 F.2d 867, 881–82 (7th Cir. 1988) (unequal\\ntreatment of inmates without rational relation to legitimate\\npenal interest violates Equal Protection).\\n Lisle, however, has not presented evidence that would al-\\nlow a jury to infer reasonably that Lieutenants Samuel or\\nBrookman acted based on racial animus. Starting first with\\nSamuel, nothing in the record could lead a reasonable jury to\\ndetermine that he even had the authority to decide that Lisle\\nwould be placed in disciplinary segregation and his cellmate\\nwould not. The disciplinary charges for Lisle and his cellmate\\nwere both signed by an officer who is not a party in this action.\\nSamuel’s only involvement in Lisle’s segregation was that he\\nescorted him there pending his disciplinary hearing.\\n Lieutenant Brookman served as one of two members of the\\nAdjustment Committee that oversaw Lisle’s disciplinary\\nhearing. Lisle claims Brookman denied him the right to call a\\nwitness during the disciplinary hearing because Lisle is black.\\nLisle introduced no evidence, though, suggesting that Brook-\\nman’s failure to call Samuel was based on race or that Brook-\\nman permitted similarly situated white inmates to call wit-\\nnesses while not allowing black inmates to do so. Undisputed\\nevidence instead indicates the decision was based on the al-\\nleged threats and abuse that the correctional officers appar-\\nently found credible. In this instance, correctional officers\\n\\fNo. 18-1595 23\\n\\nbelieved the white inmate, not the black inmate. Without\\nmore evidence of racial motive, the officers’ judgments about\\nwhom to believe are not sufficient to allow a jury to infer racial\\nbias. Lisle’s claim of race discrimination is supported only by\\nspeculation and conjecture, which is not enough to survive\\nsummary judgment. Boston v. U.S. Steel Corp., 816 F.3d 455,\\n466 (7th Cir. 2016). We affirm the district court’s grant of sum-\\nmary judgment on Lisle’s equal protection claims.\\n D. Deprivation of Liberty Without Due Process\\n Finally, the district court correctly granted summary judg-\\nment on the due process claim against Lieutenant Brookman.\\nWhen an inmate raises a due process claim for a disciplinary\\nproceeding, he must demonstrate: (1) the deprivation of a lib-\\nerty interest; and (2) the procedures he was afforded were\\nconstitutionally deficient. Scruggs v. Jordan, 485 F.3d 934, 939\\n(7th Cir. 2007). Lisle fails at the first step, so we do not address\\nwhether the procedures were constitutionally deficient.\\n Lisle’s claimed liberty interest was avoiding assignment to\\na segregation cell. Avoiding segregation can constitute a pro-\\ntected liberty interest, but the facts matter. Hardaway v. Mey-\\nerhoff, 734 F.3d 740, 743 (7th Cir. 2013), citing Marion v. Colum-\\nbia Correction Inst., 559 F.3d 693, 697 (7th Cir. 2009). This inter-\\nest is triggered only when the confinement imposes “atypical\\nand significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordi-\\nnary incidents of prison life.” Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472,\\n484 (1995). When considering whether disciplinary segrega-\\ntion imposes atypical and significant hardships, we look to\\nboth the duration of the segregation and the conditions en-\\ndured. Marion, 559 F.3d at 697.\\n\\f24 No. 18-1595\\n\\n First, the duration of segregation was not an atypical or\\nsignificant hardship. We have found that, depending on the\\nconditions of confinement and whether there were any addi-\\ntional punishments, a period of segregation considerably\\nshorter than four months may satisfy this requirement. Kervin\\nv. Barnes, 787 F.3d 833, 836 (7th Cir. 2015) (collecting cases).\\nHowever, we have also found longer durations did not. Mar-\\nion, 559 F.3d at 698 (six months of segregation is not such an\\nextreme term as to trigger due process rights without more).\\nA sentence of four months in segregation for the discovery of\\ncontraband is not so atypical and significantly harsh that it\\ncreates a liberty interest.\\n Second, Lisle has not shown that the conditions of his con-\\nfinement in segregation themselves imposed atypical and sig-\\nnificant hardships. Lisle needed to show that the conditions\\nof his confinement in his segregated cell deviated substan-\\ntially from the ordinary conditions of prison life. Sandin, 515\\nU.S. at 486 (inmates must demonstrate that punishment con-\\nstituted dramatic departure from basic conditions of prison\\nlife to present atypical and significant hardship such that it\\nwould create liberty interest); Kervin, 787 F.3d at 836 (“the crit-\\nical question is how far the treatment of the complaining in-\\nmate deviates from [the] ordinary conditions” of a high-secu-\\nrity prison and the conditions under which prisoner is actu-\\nally held). In short, if the disciplinary measures do not “sub-\\nstantially worsen the conditions of confinement” of an in-\\nmate, then he has not been deprived of a protected liberty in-\\nterest. Miller v. Dobier, 634 F.3d 412, 414–15 (7th Cir. 2011).\\n We agree with the district court that Lisle did not offer ev-\\nidence that would allow a reasonable jury to find the condi-\\ntions of his segregation imposed atypical and significant\\n\\fNo. 18-1595 25\\n\\nhardships. The vague description of his cell, including rust on\\nthe bars and “corroded feces” in the toilet, does not itself re-\\nveal much. Regardless, a jury could not reasonably infer that\\nthese conditions were unique to cells in the segregation unit\\nor that these conditions caused Lisle any significant hardship.\\nLisle is correct that we do not find conditions are typical and\\nacceptable merely because they do not rise to the most ex-\\ntreme conditions, but he needed to offer some evidence that\\nwould allow a jury to determine that the conditions in segre-\\ngation deviated substantially from ordinary conditions of his\\nconfinement.\\n Lisle further argues that placing an inmate in a cell that\\nexacerbates his depression and suicidal urges without provid-\\ning a crisis team implicates his liberty interest. We need not\\ndecide whether this is correct because the record does not re-\\nflect Lisle’s mental health crisis was exacerbated by the con-\\nditions of his confinement. Instead, the record shows Lisle at-\\ntributes his frustration with the disciplinary hearing and the\\ngrievance process as the trigger for his worsening mental\\nhealth.\\n * * *\\n To sum up, we REVERSE summary judgment for Nurse\\nSouth on the Eighth Amendment claim based on her alleged\\ntaunts. On the Batson claim, we VACATE the portions of the\\njudgment based on the trial verdict and REMAND for addi-\\ntional findings on the credibility of the defendants’ race-neu-\\ntral explanations for their peremptory strikes of black pro-\\nspective jurors, and for such further proceedings as are\\nneeded consistent with this opinion, which may include a\\n\\f26 No. 18-1595\\n\\nnew trial on the claims that were tried. In all other respects\\nthe judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 4\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n4 Lisle’s deliberate indifference claim against the remaining defendants\\nfor allegedly failing to address his grievances was not briefed on appeal\\nand thus waived. United States v. Webster, 775 F.3d 897, 904 (7th Cir. 2015)\\n(arguments not raised in party’s opening brief are waived); see also Ow-\\nens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 953 (7th Cir. 2011) (mere mishandling of pris-\\noner’s grievance does not support claim).\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3773,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4645119,"string":"4,645,119"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Jeffrey Leiser v. Karen Kloth"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-08-01"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"17-3378"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before EASTERBROOK, HAMILTON, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"David Frank Hamilton\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 17-3378\\nJEFFREY D. LEISER,\\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\\n v.\\n\\nKAREN KLOTH, Correctional Sergeant, et al.,\\n Defendants-Appellants.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Western District of Wisconsin.\\n No. 3:15-cv-00768-slc — Stephen L. Crocker, Magistrate Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED SEPTEMBER 5, 2018 — DECIDED AUGUST 1, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before EASTERBROOK, HAMILTON, and SCUDDER, Circuit\\nJudges.\\n HAMILTON, Circuit Judge. Jeffrey Leiser was an inmate at\\nthe Wisconsin Stanley Correctional Institution where Ser-\\ngeant Karen Kloth was employed. Leiser, who was later diag-\\nnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder while at Stanley,\\nalleged that beginning in 2013 he self-reported his disorder to\\nKloth and “informed” her not to stand directly behind him\\nbecause doing so triggered his mental health symptoms. He\\n\\f2 No. 17-3378\\n\\nclaims Kloth did not comply with his request but instead in-\\ncreased the amount of time she stood behind him while pa-\\ntrolling common areas. Leiser filed this suit against Kloth, her\\nsupervisor, and the warden, claiming that Kloth’s behavior\\nviolated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel\\nand unusual punishment. The district court denied the de-\\nfendants’ motion for summary judgment after determining\\nthey were not entitled to qualified immunity because Leiser\\nhad a well-established right to be free from intentionally in-\\nflicted psychological harm. The defendants filed this interloc-\\nutory appeal, asking us to resolve the legal question of\\nwhether they were, in fact, entitled to qualified immunity. We\\nreverse. Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. At the\\nrelevant times, it did not violate clearly established constitu-\\ntional law for non-medical correctional staff to refuse to pro-\\nvide a prisoner with what amounts to a medical accommoda-\\ntion that had not been ordered by medical staff and the need\\nfor which was not obvious to a layperson.\\nI. Facts\\n We construe the evidence in the light most favorable to\\nLeiser as the non-moving party. See Lovett v. Herbert, 907 F.3d\\n986, 990 (7th Cir. 2018). At all times relevant, Jeffrey Leiser was\\nan inmate in the custody of the Wisconsin Department of Cor-\\nrections, housed at the Stanley Correctional Institution. Ser-\\ngeant Karen Kloth was a correctional officer who worked in\\nLeiser’s unit. Kloth reported to Unit Manager Paula Stoudt\\nand in turn to Warden Reed Richardson.\\n Leiser was housed in Stanley’s mental health unit. He\\nstruggled with numerous mental health issues, including at\\ntimes suicidal tendencies. Especially relevant to this case, the\\npsychological services staff eventually diagnosed Leiser with\\n\\fNo. 17-3378 3\\n\\nPost Traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”) stemming from a\\nsexual attack he suffered as a child. Leiser alleges that because\\nof this attack, when someone stands directly behind him, he\\nexperiences flashbacks and may become angry, knock his\\nhead against a wall, break out in a sweat, yell, scream, and\\nwant to hurt whoever triggered the episode. Leiser told staff\\nin the Psychological Services Unit he was experiencing PTSD\\nsymptoms as early as October 2014, but he was not diagnosed\\nwith the disorder until some time in the spring of 2015.\\n While at Stanley, Leiser met regularly with staff from the\\nPsychological Services Unit. On March 30, 2015, he told his\\ntreating clinician that he could not tolerate people standing\\ndirectly behind him and that his anxiety spiked when he was\\nwaiting in line for medications in the Health Services Unit.\\nHis psychiatrist then arranged for him to receive his medica-\\ntions directly from nursing staff, rather than after waiting in\\nline, to avoid this discomfort. Leiser did not receive any other\\naccommodation for his PTSD from the psychological staff.\\nStanley’s Psychological Services Unit does not inform correc-\\ntional officers of an inmate’s clinical diagnosis if no accommo-\\ndation is required.\\n At some point in 2013, well before his diagnosis, Leiser no-\\nticed that Sergeant Karen Kloth began standing behind him in\\ncommon areas, close enough, he says, to trigger his PTSD.\\nLeiser told Kloth that he suffered from PTSD and that he\\ncould not tolerate anyone standing so close behind him. Kloth\\nresponded by telling Leiser he would just have to “deal with\\nit” because she could stand where she wanted.\\n After this exchange, Leiser claims, Kloth increased the\\namount of time she stood directly behind him. Leiser submit-\\nted declarations from three other inmates who testified that\\n\\f4 No. 17-3378\\n\\nKloth stood directly behind Leiser “every time” she worked\\nand that she would stand behind him until he started shaking\\nand sweating. Another inmate, Loren Leiser (Leiser’s brother)\\ntold Kloth that she should not stand behind Leiser because of\\nhis PTSD, explained his symptoms, and that it would be her\\nfault if he “snapped on her.” Leiser’s witnesses testified that\\nafter Kloth stood behind Leiser, he would dump his tray and\\nretreat to his cell where he would shake, sweat, and talk to\\nhimself. Leiser indicated he began skipping meals when\\nKloth was on duty to avoid the risk of experiencing his PTSD\\nsymptoms.\\n Notes from treating clinicians say that Leiser was having\\nproblems with unit staff standing behind him, but they do not\\nindicate he ever identified it was Kloth. Leiser eventually\\ncomplained in writing about Kloth’s behavior to her supervi-\\nsors, Stoudt and Richardson. Though the written complaints\\nto Stoudt did not indicate Kloth was engaging in conduct\\nwhich triggered his PTSD, the letter he wrote to Warden Rich-\\nardson specifically requested that Kloth be prohibited from\\nstanding behind him for that reason. Neither Stoudt nor Rich-\\nardson acted on these complaints.\\n Leiser sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on November 30, 2015.\\nAmong other claims, Leiser alleged that Kloth was intention-\\nally causing him psychological harm by repeatedly attempt-\\ning to trigger his PTSD, which he said violated the Eighth\\nAmendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punish-\\nments. He also sued Stoudt and Richardson for failing to pro-\\ntect him from Kloth’s behavior.\\n Following a mandatory screening of the in forma pauperis\\ncomplaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the district court permit-\\nted Leiser to proceed on the Eighth Amendment claim against\\n\\fNo. 17-3378 5\\n\\nKloth and failure-to-protect claims against Stoudt and Rich-\\nardson. The defendants later moved for summary judgment.\\nThey argued that Kloth’s behavior did not rise to the level of\\ncruel and unusual punishment, and even if it did, the evi-\\ndence did not establish that the defendants knew that Leiser’s\\nPTSD was triggered when Kloth stood behind him. Regard-\\nless, they argued, defendants were entitled to qualified im-\\nmunity because if there was a constitutional violation, the le-\\ngal rule was not clearly established at the time of Kloth’s al-\\nleged conduct.\\n The court denied the defendants’ motion for summary\\njudgment, despite acknowledging it was not persuaded that\\nLeiser met the requirements discussed in Calhoun v. DeTella,\\n319 F.3d 936, 939 (7th Cir. 2003), that is, evidence that Kloth’s\\nactions were not done for a legitimate penological reason and\\nwere instead intended to humiliate and inflict psychological\\npain. The court held that a jury could find Kloth violated the\\nEighth Amendment when she increased the amount of time\\nshe spent standing behind Leiser after she learned of his\\nPTSD. Regarding qualified immunity, the district court found\\nthat Leiser had a clearly established right to be free from in-\\ntentionally inflicted psychological harm at the time of these\\nevents, making the defendants ineligible for qualified immun-\\nity. This interlocutory appeal followed.\\nII. Analysis\\n A. Appellate Jurisdiction\\n We have jurisdiction to hear this appeal because “a district\\ncourt’s denial of a claim of qualified immunity, to the extent\\nthat it turns on an issue of law, is an appealable ‘final decision’\\nwithin the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291 notwithstanding the\\n\\f6 No. 17-3378\\n\\nabsence of a final judgment.” Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511,\\n530 (1985); see also, e.g., Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 319–20\\n(1995). We review the denial de novo, considering whether the\\ndefendants were entitled to qualified immunity when view-\\ning the facts in the light most favorable to Leiser as the non-\\nmoving party. Howell v. Smith, 853 F.3d 892, 897 (7th Cir.\\n2017), citing Estate of Escobedo v. Bender, 600 F.3d 770, 778 (7th\\nCir. 2010).\\n Leiser contends we do not have jurisdiction because this\\nappeal is really a “back-door effort” to contest facts, rather\\nthan to resolve an issue of law. “[A]n appellant challenging a\\ndistrict court’s denial of qualified immunity effectively pleads\\nhimself out of court by interposing disputed factual issues in\\nhis argument.” Gutierrez v. Kermon, 722 F.3d 1003, 1010 (7th\\nCir. 2013); see also Gant v. Hartman, 924 F.3d 445, 451 (7th Cir.\\n2019) (dismissing officer’s appeal of denial of qualified im-\\nmunity because his argument depended on disputed facts).\\nFor purposes of this appeal, however, appellants\\nacknowledge that all issues of material fact must be resolved\\nin Leiser’s favor and reviewed in a light most favorable to\\nhim. See Knox v. Smith, 342 F.3d 651, 657 (7th Cir. 2003) (de-\\nfendant is not generally permitted to appeal denial of a sum-\\nmary judgment that involves mixed question of law and fact,\\n“but where, as here, one side concedes the other’s facts as to\\nwhat happened, it is a question of law”).\\n Leiser argues that the appeal focuses on the disputed fact\\nof Kloth’s intent, not a legal question, because the operative\\nquestions are whether Kloth stood behind Leiser knowing that\\nthis could trigger his PTSD and if so, whether this rose to the\\nlevel of injury cognizable by the Eighth Amendment. Even\\nframing the questions this way, we have jurisdiction.\\n\\fNo. 17-3378 7\\n\\nAppellants concede—and we assume—for purposes of sum-\\nmary judgment that Kloth did know her conduct could cause\\nLeiser psychological discomfort related to his PTSD. Whether\\nan injury rises to a level “cognizable by the Eighth Amend-\\nment” is an issue of law that we have jurisdiction to decide.\\nThis appeal does not depend on disputed facts, so we have\\njurisdiction to hear this appeal. We now move on to whether\\nthe defendants were entitled to qualified immunity.\\n B. Qualified Immunity\\n Qualified immunity is a doctrine that “protects govern-\\nment officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their\\nconduct does not violate clearly established statutory or con-\\nstitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have\\nknown.’” Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009), quoting\\nHarlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). In other words,\\nqualified immunity does not shield a government official if\\nthe alleged conduct violates a right that was clearly estab-\\nlished at the time. Thayer v. Chiczewski, 705 F.3d 237, 253 (7th\\nCir. 2012).\\n To defeat a defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff\\nmust show two elements: first, that the facts show “a violation\\nof a constitutional right,” and second, that the “constitutional\\nright was clearly established at the time of the alleged viola-\\ntion.” Gill v. City of Milwaukee, 850 F.3d 335, 340 (7th Cir. 2017).\\nWe have discretion to choose which of these elements to ad-\\ndress first. Pearson, 555 U.S. at 236. Because the second prong\\nis dispositive here, we will address only whether the right at\\nissue was clearly established under the circumstances the de-\\nfendant faced. Lovett v. Herbert, 907 F.3d 986, 991–92 (7th Cir.\\n2018), quoting Mason-Funk v. City of Neenah, 895 F.3d 504, 507–\\n08 (7th Cir. 2018).\\n\\f8 No. 17-3378\\n\\n While qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, once\\nraised, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to defeat it. Purvis v.\\nOest, 614 F.3d 713, 717 (7th Cir. 2010). To meet his burden on\\nthis prong, Leiser needed to “show either a reasonably analo-\\ngous case that has both articulated the right at issue and ap-\\nplied it to a factual circumstance similar to the one at hand or\\nthat the violation was so obvious that a reasonable person\\nnecessarily would have recognized it as a violation of the\\nlaw.” Howell, 853 F.3d at 897, quoting Chan v. Wodnicki, 123\\nF.3d 1005, 1008 (7th Cir. 1997). This requirement does not\\nmean Leiser had to find a case “on all fours” with the facts\\nhere. Howell, 853 F.3d at 897, citing Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730,\\n741 (2002). He did, however, need to show some settled au-\\nthority that would have shown a reasonable officer in Kloth’s\\nposition that her alleged actions violated the Constitution.\\nMullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305, 308 (2015).\\n “To be clearly established, a right must be sufficiently clear\\nthat every reasonable official would have understood that\\nwhat he is doing violates that right” meaning that “existing\\nprecedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional\\nquestion beyond debate.” Reichle v. Howards, 566 U.S. 658, 664\\n(2012) (cleaned up). That is, the right must be clearly estab-\\nlished to a degree of specificity such that a reasonable govern-\\nment official would be able to identify the violation with a\\nspecific set of facts.\\n In deciding a question of qualified immunity, the level of\\nspecificity at which the legal question is asked is often deci-\\nsive, and it is possible to be too general and too specific. See,\\ne.g., Thompson v. Cope, 900 F.3d 414, 421–22 (7th Cir. 2018). We\\nmust determine whether a right is clearly established “in light\\nof the specific context of the case, not as a broad general\\n\\fNo. 17-3378 9\\n\\nproposition.” Lovett, 907 F.3d at 992, quoting Mullenix, 136 S.\\nCt. at 308. This requires us to consider “whether the violative\\nnature of particular conduct is clearly established.” Mullenix,\\n136 S. Ct. at 308, quoting Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 742\\n(2011). The Supreme Court has “repeatedly told courts … not\\nto define clearly established law at a high level of generality.”\\nMullenix, 136 S. Ct. at 308, see also al-Kidd, 563 U.S. at 742\\n(“The general proposition, for example, that an unreasonable\\nsearch or seizure violates the Fourth Amendment is of little\\nhelp in determining whether the violative nature of particular\\nconduct is clearly established.”).\\n We first look to whether the Supreme Court or this circuit\\nhas previously held that conduct analogous to the present\\ncase violates the right at issue. Lovett, 907 F.3d at 992. The lack\\nof specific precedent is not necessarily fatal to a qualified im-\\nmunity defense because the Supreme Court has recognized\\nthat “officials can still be on notice that their conduct violates\\nestablished law … in novel factual circumstances.” Safford\\nUnified Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Redding, 557 U.S. 364, 377–78 (2009),\\nquoting Hope, 536 U.S. at 741–42 (no qualified immunity when\\nprison guards handcuffed inmate to hitching post for seven\\nhours without regular water or bathroom breaks for his dis-\\nruptive behavior, despite his having already been subdued).\\nIf no existing precedent puts the conduct beyond debate, we\\nnext consider if this is one of the rare cases, like Hope, where\\nthe state official’s alleged conduct is so egregious that it is an\\nobvious violation of a constitutional right. Abbott v. Sangamon\\nCounty, 705 F.3d 706, 723–24 (7th Cir. 2013) (no qualified im-\\nmunity for police officer for excessive force claims where of-\\nficer tased nonviolent misdemeanant who did not respond to\\ninstructions to turn over after being tased a first time).\\n\\f10 No. 17-3378\\n\\n The district court determined that Leiser had “a clearly es-\\ntablished right to be free from intentionally inflicted psycho-\\nlogical harm.” Leiser frames the question differently, as\\n“whether Kloth subjected Leiser to calculated harassment un-\\nrelated to prison needs.” Both of these statements are at too\\nhigh a level of generality. See Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194,\\n199–200 (2004) (remanding denial of summary judgment on\\nqualified immunity because court of appeals found fair warn-\\ning in general tests regarding prohibition of shooting fleeing\\nsuspects rather than the more “particularized” fact of shoot-\\ning fleeing suspects “when persons in the immediate area are\\nat risk from that flight”).\\n As we see the case, the issue is whether it was clearly es-\\ntablished that Kloth was constitutionally required to accom-\\nmodate Leiser’s specific and unique mental health need based\\nsolely on his self-reporting and demands of other inmates, ab-\\nsent instructions from the medical staff.\\n “The Eighth Amendment prohibits unnecessary and wan-\\nton infliction of pain, thus forbidding punishment that is ‘so\\ntotally without penological justification that it results in the\\ngratuitous infliction of suffering.’” Calhoun v. DeTella, 319 F.3d\\n936, 939 (7th Cir. 2003), quoting Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153,\\n173 (1976). This prohibition against cruel and unusual pun-\\nishment of inmates includes both physical and psychological\\nharm. See Beal v. Foster, 803 F.3d 356, 357–58 (7th Cir. 2015)\\n(reversing dismissal of § 1983 claim against prison guard who\\nallegedly made remarks labelling a male inmate as homosex-\\nual, allegedly causing inmate severe psychological harm due\\nto worry of increased likelihood of sexual assaults, thus mak-\\ning it more than “simple verbal harassment”), quoting Wa-\\ntison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012).\\n\\fNo. 17-3378 11\\n\\n Inmates have long had a clearly established right to be free\\nfrom intentionally inflicted psychological torment and humil-\\niation unrelated to penological interests. Hudson v. Palmer, 468\\nU.S. 517, 530 (1984) (mentioning the Eighth Amendment pro-\\ntects against “calculated harassment unrelated to prison\\nneeds”); King v. McCarty, 781 F.3d 889, 892 (7th Cir. 2015) (re-\\nversing dismissal; inmate plausibly alleged see-through\\njumpsuit that exposed his genitals during transfer to new\\nprison had no penological purpose and only intended to hu-\\nmiliate and inflict psychological pain in violation of Eighth\\nAmendment); Beal, 803 F.3d at 359 (jury could find correc-\\ntional officer’s verbal and nonverbal harassment was cruel\\nand unusual because it “may have made him a pariah to his\\nfellow inmates and inflicted significant psychological harm”);\\nMays v. Springborn, 575 F.3d 643, 649 (7th Cir. 2009) (reversing\\nsummary judgment for prison guards in light of inmates’ al-\\nlegations of strip searches publicly conducted in cold room\\nwith guards who did not change their latex gloves and made\\ndemeaning comments to inmates; genuine dispute over\\nwhether searches “were conducted in a harassing manner in-\\ntended to humiliate and cause psychological pain”). How-\\never, “not every psychological discomfort a prisoner endures\\namounts to a constitutional violation.” Calhoun, 319 F.3d at\\n939.\\n Leiser argues that Kloth had a constitutional obligation to\\nmodify her movements around the common area to avoid\\nstanding directly behind Leiser after he informed her that this\\nproximity to him exacerbated his self-reported PTSD. How-\\never, none of the cases from this circuit he relies upon have\\nfacts closely analogous to those here. Se Davis v. Wessel, 792\\nF.3d 793, 796 (7th Cir. 2015) (body restraints); Mays, 575 F.3d\\n\\f12 No. 17-3378\\n\\nat 649 (strip searches); Delaney v. DeTella, 256 F.3d 679, 681–82\\n(7th Cir. 2001) (conditions of confinement).\\n The cases Leiser cites from other circuits also fail to show\\nthis right was clearly established. The only authority he points\\nto that deals with psychological harm rather than physical\\nharm or threats is OʹConnor v. Huard, 117 F.3d 12, 17 (1st Cir.\\n1997), where the First Circuit considered the denial of quali-\\nfied immunity under a plain error standard because the de-\\nfendant had failed to preserve the affirmative defense. There,\\na jury found for the former pretrial detainee who had claimed\\nthat a correctional officer deprived him of mental health med-\\nication and intentionally triggered his anxiety attacks. Id. at\\n15. The district judge denied the officer’s motion for judgment\\nnotwithstanding the verdict, where she asserted for the first\\ntime that she was entitled to qualified immunity. The First\\nCircuit affirmed the verdict for the plaintiff because the officer\\n“never brought forward any evidence suggesting that her ac-\\ntions were objectively reasonable in light of [plaintiff’s] clearly\\nestablished due process right.” Id. at 17. Though O’Connor\\npresents closer facts than the other cases Leiser cites, it in-\\nvolved the denial of access to prescribed medications, which\\nwould clearly interfere with prescribed medical treatment. In\\naddition, the differences in procedural posture and standard\\nof review undermine his argument that the right at issue here\\nwas clearly established at the time of Kloth’s conduct.\\n Because he does not provide an analogous case, we now\\nconsider whether Leiser established that Kloth’s conduct was\\nso outrageous that no reasonable correctional officer would\\nhave believed the conduct was legal. He did not meet this bur-\\nden. As noted above, in some “rare cases,” such as Hope v.\\nPelzer, where the constitutional violation is “patently\\n\\fNo. 17-3378 13\\n\\nobvious,” the plaintiffs may not need to cite closely analogous\\ncases because “widespread compliance with a clearly appar-\\nent law may have prevented the issue from previously being\\nlitigated.” Jacobs v. City of Chicago, 215 F.3d 758, 767 (7th Cir.\\n2000). For example, in Abbott v. Sangamon County, qualified\\nimmunity did not apply despite the lack of analogous cases\\nbecause it was clearly “unlawful to deploy a taser in dart\\nmode against a nonviolent misdemeanant who had just been\\ntased in dart mode and made no movement when, after the\\nfirst tasing, the officer instructed her to turn over.” 705 F.3d\\n706, 732 (7th Cir. 2013); cf. Lovett, 907 F.3d at 993 (not “egre-\\ngiously” or “obviously unreasonable” to assign a severely in-\\ntoxicated pre-trial detainee a top bunk from which he fell and\\ndied); Kemp v. Liebel, 877 F.3d 346, 353–54 (7th Cir. 2017) (qual-\\nified immunity applies on Free Exercise claim where no anal-\\nogous case identified and it was not egregious or unreasona-\\nble for Jewish prisoners to be unintentionally denied religious\\nservices for several months after transfer to a new prison).\\n At the time of Kloth’s conduct here, it was not clearly es-\\ntablished that she was constitutionally required to avoid\\nstanding behind Leiser as a result of his self-reporting of a\\npending (albeit eventual) diagnosis. Such conduct, if intended\\nto provoke a negative response from Leiser, may have been\\nunprofessional and unjustified, but the law did not make clear\\nthat it amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. Leiser’s\\nclaim here implies that prison staff have a constitutional obli-\\ngation to modify the way they do their jobs based solely on an\\ninmate’s assertion that their actions elicit extreme psycholog-\\nical responses. We must recognize the risk that such a rule of\\nlaw, which would apply without orders from prison medical\\nstaff, could create a real danger of inmates manipulating\\n\\f14 No. 17-3378\\n\\ncorrectional officers for purposes unrelated to their mental\\nhealth.\\n This would be an entirely different case if Leiser had been\\ndiagnosed with PTSD and the medical staff had ordered cor-\\nrectional staff to provide an accommodation for Leiser that\\nKloth ignored. Generally, non-medical staff of jails and pris-\\nons must comply with medical directives, which includes\\nmental health accommodations. Mitchell v. Kallas, 895 F.3d\\n492, 499 (7th Cir. 2018) (“An absence of treatment is equally\\nactionable whether the inmate’s suffering is physical or psy-\\nchological.”); Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742, 752–53 (7th Cir.\\n2011) (refusal to provide inmate with prescribed medication\\nor to follow advice of specialists can violate the Eighth\\nAmendment); Ralston v. McGovern, 167 F.3d 1160, 1161–62\\n(7th Cir. 1999) (reversing summary judgment because non-\\nmedical prison guard’s refusal to comply with physician’s\\ntherapy decision could be cruel and unusual).\\n While the lack of an accommodation directive from a psy-\\nchiatrist should not be treated as permission to harass inmates\\nin any manner, it is not unreasonable for a non-medical prison\\nstaff member to assume that a treating physician would have\\nordered an accommodation if one was necessary. See Arnett,\\n658 F.3d at 755 (recognizing non-medical prison staff “will\\ngenerally be justified in believing that the prisoner is in capa-\\nble hands” when relying on expertise of medical personnel);\\nBerry v. Peterman, 604 F.3d 435, 440 (7th Cir. 2010) (“As a prac-\\ntical matter, it would be unwise to require more of a nonmed-\\nical staff member” than reliance on prison medical staff, as\\n“the law encourages non-medical security and administrative\\npersonnel at jails and prisons to defer to the professional med-\\nical judgments”).\\n\\fNo. 17-3378 15\\n\\n Kloth is entitled to summary judgment because Leiser did\\nnot establish that he had a clearly established constitutional\\nright to an accommodation of a self-reported mental diagno-\\nsis without confirmation from medical staff or existence of a\\ntreatment plan. This conclusion means that defendants Stoudt\\nand Richardson are also entitled to summary judgment. See,\\ne.g., Gill v. City of Milwaukee, 850 F.3d 335, 342 (7th Cir. 2017)\\n(failure-to-intervene claims failed where plaintiff’s right to be\\nfree from certain interrogation tactics was not clearly estab-\\nlished at the time).\\n With high numbers of inmates suffering from mental ill-\\nnesses, the scope of prison medical and non-medical staffs’\\nduties toward mentally ill prisoners is an issue we can expect\\nto face often. We understand that the relationships between\\ninmates and prison staff are not always the model of civility,\\nbut it is essential that correctional staff comply with orders\\nfrom medical staff. Here there were no such orders, so Leiser\\nhas not established that Kloth’s alleged conduct rose to an\\nEighth Amendment violation beyond reasonable debate at\\nthe time of her alleged conduct.\\n We REVERSE the district court’s denial of summary judg-\\nment and REMAND with instructions to grant summary\\njudgment in favor of the appellants.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4422372/\", \"author_raw\": \"David Frank Hamilton\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"EASTERBROOK"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"HAMILTON"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"SCUDDER"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"EASTERBROOK\": \", Circuit\", \"HAMILTON\": \", Circuit\", \"SCUDDER\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645119/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":8,"string":"8"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Jeffrey Leiser v. Karen Kloth\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-08-01\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 17-3378\nJEFFREY D. LEISER,\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\n v.\n\nKAREN KLOTH, Correctional Sergeant, et al.,\n Defendants-Appellants.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Western District of Wisconsin.\n No. 3:15-cv-00768-slc — Stephen L. Crocker, Magistrate Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED SEPTEMBER 5, 2018 — DECIDED AUGUST 1, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before EASTERBROOK, HAMILTON, and SCUDDER, Circuit\nJudges.\n HAMILTON, Circuit Judge. Jeffrey Leiser was an inmate at\nthe Wisconsin Stanley Correctional Institution where Ser-\ngeant Karen Kloth was employed. Leiser, who was later diag-\nnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder while at Stanley,\nalleged that beginning in 2013 he self-reported his disorder to\nKloth and “informed” her not to stand directly behind him\nbecause doing so triggered his mental health symptoms. He\n\f2 No. 17-3378\n\nclaims Kloth did not comply with his request but instead in-\ncreased the amount of time she stood behind him while pa-\ntrolling common areas. Leiser filed this suit against Kloth, her\nsupervisor, and the warden, claiming that Kloth’s behavior\nviolated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel\nand unusual punishment. The district court denied the de-\nfendants’ motion for summary judgment after determining\nthey were not entitled to qualified immunity because Leiser\nhad a well-established right to be free from intentionally in-\nflicted psychological harm. The defendants filed this interloc-\nutory appeal, asking us to resolve the legal question of\nwhether they were, in fact, entitled to qualified immunity. We\nreverse. Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. At the\nrelevant times, it did not violate clearly established constitu-\ntional law for non-medical correctional staff to refuse to pro-\nvide a prisoner with what amounts to a medical accommoda-\ntion that had not been ordered by medical staff and the need\nfor which was not obvious to a layperson.\nI. Facts\n We construe the evidence in the light most favorable to\nLeiser as the non-moving party. See Lovett v. Herbert, 907 F.3d\n986, 990 (7th Cir. 2018). At all times relevant, Jeffrey Leiser was\nan inmate in the custody of the Wisconsin Department of Cor-\nrections, housed at the Stanley Correctional Institution. Ser-\ngeant Karen Kloth was a correctional officer who worked in\nLeiser’s unit. Kloth reported to Unit Manager Paula Stoudt\nand in turn to Warden Reed Richardson.\n Leiser was housed in Stanley’s mental health unit. He\nstruggled with numerous mental health issues, including at\ntimes suicidal tendencies. Especially relevant to this case, the\npsychological services staff eventually diagnosed Leiser with\n\fNo. 17-3378 3\n\nPost Traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”) stemming from a\nsexual attack he suffered as a child. Leiser alleges that because\nof this attack, when someone stands directly behind him, he\nexperiences flashbacks and may become angry, knock his\nhead against a wall, break out in a sweat, yell, scream, and\nwant to hurt whoever triggered the episode. Leiser told staff\nin the Psychological Services Unit he was experiencing PTSD\nsymptoms as early as October 2014, but he was not diagnosed\nwith the disorder until some time in the spring of 2015.\n While at Stanley, Leiser met regularly with staff from the\nPsychological Services Unit. On March 30, 2015, he told his\ntreating clinician that he could not tolerate people standing\ndirectly behind him and that his anxiety spiked when he was\nwaiting in line for medications in the Health Services Unit.\nHis psychiatrist then arranged for him to receive his medica-\ntions directly from nursing staff, rather than after waiting in\nline, to avoid this discomfort. Leiser did not receive any other\naccommodation for his PTSD from the psychological staff.\nStanley’s Psychological Services Unit does not inform correc-\ntional officers of an inmate’s clinical diagnosis if no accommo-\ndation is required.\n At some point in 2013, well before his diagnosis, Leiser no-\nticed that Sergeant Karen Kloth began standing behind him in\ncommon areas, close enough, he says, to trigger his PTSD.\nLeiser told Kloth that he suffered from PTSD and that he\ncould not tolerate anyone standing so close behind him. Kloth\nresponded by telling Leiser he would just have to “deal with\nit” because she could stand where she wanted.\n After this exchange, Leiser claims, Kloth increased the\namount of time she stood directly behind him. Leiser submit-\nted declarations from three other inmates who testified that\n\f4 No. 17-3378\n\nKloth stood directly behind Leiser “every time” she worked\nand that she would stand behind him until he started shaking\nand sweating. Another inmate, Loren Leiser (Leiser’s brother)\ntold Kloth that she should not stand behind Leiser because of\nhis PTSD, explained his symptoms, and that it would be her\nfault if he “snapped on her.” Leiser’s witnesses testified that\nafter Kloth stood behind Leiser, he would dump his tray and\nretreat to his cell where he would shake, sweat, and talk to\nhimself. Leiser indicated he began skipping meals when\nKloth was on duty to avoid the risk of experiencing his PTSD\nsymptoms.\n Notes from treating clinicians say that Leiser was having\nproblems with unit staff standing behind him, but they do not\nindicate he ever identified it was Kloth. Leiser eventually\ncomplained in writing about Kloth’s behavior to her supervi-\nsors, Stoudt and Richardson. Though the written complaints\nto Stoudt did not indicate Kloth was engaging in conduct\nwhich triggered his PTSD, the letter he wrote to Warden Rich-\nardson specifically requested that Kloth be prohibited from\nstanding behind him for that reason. Neither Stoudt nor Rich-\nardson acted on these complaints.\n Leiser sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on November 30, 2015.\nAmong other claims, Leiser alleged that Kloth was intention-\nally causing him psychological harm by repeatedly attempt-\ning to trigger his PTSD, which he said violated the Eighth\nAmendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punish-\nments. He also sued Stoudt and Richardson for failing to pro-\ntect him from Kloth’s behavior.\n Following a mandatory screening of the in forma pauperis\ncomplaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the district court permit-\nted Leiser to proceed on the Eighth Amendment claim against\n\fNo. 17-3378 5\n\nKloth and failure-to-protect claims against Stoudt and Rich-\nardson. The defendants later moved for summary judgment.\nThey argued that Kloth’s behavior did not rise to the level of\ncruel and unusual punishment, and even if it did, the evi-\ndence did not establish that the defendants knew that Leiser’s\nPTSD was triggered when Kloth stood behind him. Regard-\nless, they argued, defendants were entitled to qualified im-\nmunity because if there was a constitutional violation, the le-\ngal rule was not clearly established at the time of Kloth’s al-\nleged conduct.\n The court denied the defendants’ motion for summary\njudgment, despite acknowledging it was not persuaded that\nLeiser met the requirements discussed in Calhoun v. DeTella,\n319 F.3d 936, 939 (7th Cir. 2003), that is, evidence that Kloth’s\nactions were not done for a legitimate penological reason and\nwere instead intended to humiliate and inflict psychological\npain. The court held that a jury could find Kloth violated the\nEighth Amendment when she increased the amount of time\nshe spent standing behind Leiser after she learned of his\nPTSD. Regarding qualified immunity, the district court found\nthat Leiser had a clearly established right to be free from in-\ntentionally inflicted psychological harm at the time of these\nevents, making the defendants ineligible for qualified immun-\nity. This interlocutory appeal followed.\nII. Analysis\n A. Appellate Jurisdiction\n We have jurisdiction to hear this appeal because “a district\ncourt’s denial of a claim of qualified immunity, to the extent\nthat it turns on an issue of law, is an appealable ‘final decision’\nwithin the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291 notwithstanding the\n\f6 No. 17-3378\n\nabsence of a final judgment.” Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511,\n530 (1985); see also, e.g., Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 319–20\n(1995). We review the denial de novo, considering whether the\ndefendants were entitled to qualified immunity when view-\ning the facts in the light most favorable to Leiser as the non-\nmoving party. Howell v. Smith, 853 F.3d 892, 897 (7th Cir.\n2017), citing Estate of Escobedo v. Bender, 600 F.3d 770, 778 (7th\nCir. 2010).\n Leiser contends we do not have jurisdiction because this\nappeal is really a “back-door effort” to contest facts, rather\nthan to resolve an issue of law. “[A]n appellant challenging a\ndistrict court’s denial of qualified immunity effectively pleads\nhimself out of court by interposing disputed factual issues in\nhis argument.” Gutierrez v. Kermon, 722 F.3d 1003, 1010 (7th\nCir. 2013); see also Gant v. Hartman, 924 F.3d 445, 451 (7th Cir.\n2019) (dismissing officer’s appeal of denial of qualified im-\nmunity because his argument depended on disputed facts).\nFor purposes of this appeal, however, appellants\nacknowledge that all issues of material fact must be resolved\nin Leiser’s favor and reviewed in a light most favorable to\nhim. See Knox v. Smith, 342 F.3d 651, 657 (7th Cir. 2003) (de-\nfendant is not generally permitted to appeal denial of a sum-\nmary judgment that involves mixed question of law and fact,\n“but where, as here, one side concedes the other’s facts as to\nwhat happened, it is a question of law”).\n Leiser argues that the appeal focuses on the disputed fact\nof Kloth’s intent, not a legal question, because the operative\nquestions are whether Kloth stood behind Leiser knowing that\nthis could trigger his PTSD and if so, whether this rose to the\nlevel of injury cognizable by the Eighth Amendment. Even\nframing the questions this way, we have jurisdiction.\n\fNo. 17-3378 7\n\nAppellants concede—and we assume—for purposes of sum-\nmary judgment that Kloth did know her conduct could cause\nLeiser psychological discomfort related to his PTSD. Whether\nan injury rises to a level “cognizable by the Eighth Amend-\nment” is an issue of law that we have jurisdiction to decide.\nThis appeal does not depend on disputed facts, so we have\njurisdiction to hear this appeal. We now move on to whether\nthe defendants were entitled to qualified immunity.\n B. Qualified Immunity\n Qualified immunity is a doctrine that “protects govern-\nment officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their\nconduct does not violate clearly established statutory or con-\nstitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have\nknown.’” Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009), quoting\nHarlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). In other words,\nqualified immunity does not shield a government official if\nthe alleged conduct violates a right that was clearly estab-\nlished at the time. Thayer v. Chiczewski, 705 F.3d 237, 253 (7th\nCir. 2012).\n To defeat a defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff\nmust show two elements: first, that the facts show “a violation\nof a constitutional right,” and second, that the “constitutional\nright was clearly established at the time of the alleged viola-\ntion.” Gill v. City of Milwaukee, 850 F.3d 335, 340 (7th Cir. 2017).\nWe have discretion to choose which of these elements to ad-\ndress first. Pearson, 555 U.S. at 236. Because the second prong\nis dispositive here, we will address only whether the right at\nissue was clearly established under the circumstances the de-\nfendant faced. Lovett v. Herbert, 907 F.3d 986, 991–92 (7th Cir.\n2018), quoting Mason-Funk v. City of Neenah, 895 F.3d 504, 507–\n08 (7th Cir. 2018).\n\f8 No. 17-3378\n\n While qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, once\nraised, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to defeat it. Purvis v.\nOest, 614 F.3d 713, 717 (7th Cir. 2010). To meet his burden on\nthis prong, Leiser needed to “show either a reasonably analo-\ngous case that has both articulated the right at issue and ap-\nplied it to a factual circumstance similar to the one at hand or\nthat the violation was so obvious that a reasonable person\nnecessarily would have recognized it as a violation of the\nlaw.” Howell, 853 F.3d at 897, quoting Chan v. Wodnicki, 123\nF.3d 1005, 1008 (7th Cir. 1997). This requirement does not\nmean Leiser had to find a case “on all fours” with the facts\nhere. Howell, 853 F.3d at 897, citing Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730,\n741 (2002). He did, however, need to show some settled au-\nthority that would have shown a reasonable officer in Kloth’s\nposition that her alleged actions violated the Constitution.\nMullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305, 308 (2015).\n “To be clearly established, a right must be sufficiently clear\nthat every reasonable official would have understood that\nwhat he is doing violates that right” meaning that “existing\nprecedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional\nquestion beyond debate.” Reichle v. Howards, 566 U.S. 658, 664\n(2012) (cleaned up). That is, the right must be clearly estab-\nlished to a degree of specificity such that a reasonable govern-\nment official would be able to identify the violation with a\nspecific set of facts.\n In deciding a question of qualified immunity, the level of\nspecificity at which the legal question is asked is often deci-\nsive, and it is possible to be too general and too specific. See,\ne.g., Thompson v. Cope, 900 F.3d 414, 421–22 (7th Cir. 2018). We\nmust determine whether a right is clearly established “in light\nof the specific context of the case, not as a broad general\n\fNo. 17-3378 9\n\nproposition.” Lovett, 907 F.3d at 992, quoting Mullenix, 136 S.\nCt. at 308. This requires us to consider “whether the violative\nnature of particular conduct is clearly established.” Mullenix,\n136 S. Ct. at 308, quoting Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 742\n(2011). The Supreme Court has “repeatedly told courts … not\nto define clearly established law at a high level of generality.”\nMullenix, 136 S. Ct. at 308, see also al-Kidd, 563 U.S. at 742\n(“The general proposition, for example, that an unreasonable\nsearch or seizure violates the Fourth Amendment is of little\nhelp in determining whether the violative nature of particular\nconduct is clearly established.”).\n We first look to whether the Supreme Court or this circuit\nhas previously held that conduct analogous to the present\ncase violates the right at issue. Lovett, 907 F.3d at 992. The lack\nof specific precedent is not necessarily fatal to a qualified im-\nmunity defense because the Supreme Court has recognized\nthat “officials can still be on notice that their conduct violates\nestablished law … in novel factual circumstances.” Safford\nUnified Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Redding, 557 U.S. 364, 377–78 (2009),\nquoting Hope, 536 U.S. at 741–42 (no qualified immunity when\nprison guards handcuffed inmate to hitching post for seven\nhours without regular water or bathroom breaks for his dis-\nruptive behavior, despite his having already been subdued).\nIf no existing precedent puts the conduct beyond debate, we\nnext consider if this is one of the rare cases, like Hope, where\nthe state official’s alleged conduct is so egregious that it is an\nobvious violation of a constitutional right. Abbott v. Sangamon\nCounty, 705 F.3d 706, 723–24 (7th Cir. 2013) (no qualified im-\nmunity for police officer for excessive force claims where of-\nficer tased nonviolent misdemeanant who did not respond to\ninstructions to turn over after being tased a first time).\n\f10 No. 17-3378\n\n The district court determined that Leiser had “a clearly es-\ntablished right to be free from intentionally inflicted psycho-\nlogical harm.” Leiser frames the question differently, as\n“whether Kloth subjected Leiser to calculated harassment un-\nrelated to prison needs.” Both of these statements are at too\nhigh a level of generality. See Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194,\n199–200 (2004) (remanding denial of summary judgment on\nqualified immunity because court of appeals found fair warn-\ning in general tests regarding prohibition of shooting fleeing\nsuspects rather than the more “particularized” fact of shoot-\ning fleeing suspects “when persons in the immediate area are\nat risk from that flight”).\n As we see the case, the issue is whether it was clearly es-\ntablished that Kloth was constitutionally required to accom-\nmodate Leiser’s specific and unique mental health need based\nsolely on his self-reporting and demands of other inmates, ab-\nsent instructions from the medical staff.\n “The Eighth Amendment prohibits unnecessary and wan-\nton infliction of pain, thus forbidding punishment that is ‘so\ntotally without penological justification that it results in the\ngratuitous infliction of suffering.’” Calhoun v. DeTella, 319 F.3d\n936, 939 (7th Cir. 2003), quoting Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153,\n173 (1976). This prohibition against cruel and unusual pun-\nishment of inmates includes both physical and psychological\nharm. See Beal v. Foster, 803 F.3d 356, 357–58 (7th Cir. 2015)\n(reversing dismissal of § 1983 claim against prison guard who\nallegedly made remarks labelling a male inmate as homosex-\nual, allegedly causing inmate severe psychological harm due\nto worry of increased likelihood of sexual assaults, thus mak-\ning it more than “simple verbal harassment”), quoting Wa-\ntison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012).\n\fNo. 17-3378 11\n\n Inmates have long had a clearly established right to be free\nfrom intentionally inflicted psychological torment and humil-\niation unrelated to penological interests. Hudson v. Palmer, 468\nU.S. 517, 530 (1984) (mentioning the Eighth Amendment pro-\ntects against “calculated harassment unrelated to prison\nneeds”); King v. McCarty, 781 F.3d 889, 892 (7th Cir. 2015) (re-\nversing dismissal; inmate plausibly alleged see-through\njumpsuit that exposed his genitals during transfer to new\nprison had no penological purpose and only intended to hu-\nmiliate and inflict psychological pain in violation of Eighth\nAmendment); Beal, 803 F.3d at 359 (jury could find correc-\ntional officer’s verbal and nonverbal harassment was cruel\nand unusual because it “may have made him a pariah to his\nfellow inmates and inflicted significant psychological harm”);\nMays v. Springborn, 575 F.3d 643, 649 (7th Cir. 2009) (reversing\nsummary judgment for prison guards in light of inmates’ al-\nlegations of strip searches publicly conducted in cold room\nwith guards who did not change their latex gloves and made\ndemeaning comments to inmates; genuine dispute over\nwhether searches “were conducted in a harassing manner in-\ntended to humiliate and cause psychological pain”). How-\never, “not every psychological discomfort a prisoner endures\namounts to a constitutional violation.” Calhoun, 319 F.3d at\n939.\n Leiser argues that Kloth had a constitutional obligation to\nmodify her movements around the common area to avoid\nstanding directly behind Leiser after he informed her that this\nproximity to him exacerbated his self-reported PTSD. How-\never, none of the cases from this circuit he relies upon have\nfacts closely analogous to those here. Se Davis v. Wessel, 792\nF.3d 793, 796 (7th Cir. 2015) (body restraints); Mays, 575 F.3d\n\f12 No. 17-3378\n\nat 649 (strip searches); Delaney v. DeTella, 256 F.3d 679, 681–82\n(7th Cir. 2001) (conditions of confinement).\n The cases Leiser cites from other circuits also fail to show\nthis right was clearly established. The only authority he points\nto that deals with psychological harm rather than physical\nharm or threats is OʹConnor v. Huard, 117 F.3d 12, 17 (1st Cir.\n1997), where the First Circuit considered the denial of quali-\nfied immunity under a plain error standard because the de-\nfendant had failed to preserve the affirmative defense. There,\na jury found for the former pretrial detainee who had claimed\nthat a correctional officer deprived him of mental health med-\nication and intentionally triggered his anxiety attacks. Id. at\n15. The district judge denied the officer’s motion for judgment\nnotwithstanding the verdict, where she asserted for the first\ntime that she was entitled to qualified immunity. The First\nCircuit affirmed the verdict for the plaintiff because the officer\n“never brought forward any evidence suggesting that her ac-\ntions were objectively reasonable in light of [plaintiff’s] clearly\nestablished due process right.” Id. at 17. Though O’Connor\npresents closer facts than the other cases Leiser cites, it in-\nvolved the denial of access to prescribed medications, which\nwould clearly interfere with prescribed medical treatment. In\naddition, the differences in procedural posture and standard\nof review undermine his argument that the right at issue here\nwas clearly established at the time of Kloth’s conduct.\n Because he does not provide an analogous case, we now\nconsider whether Leiser established that Kloth’s conduct was\nso outrageous that no reasonable correctional officer would\nhave believed the conduct was legal. He did not meet this bur-\nden. As noted above, in some “rare cases,” such as Hope v.\nPelzer, where the constitutional violation is “patently\n\fNo. 17-3378 13\n\nobvious,” the plaintiffs may not need to cite closely analogous\ncases because “widespread compliance with a clearly appar-\nent law may have prevented the issue from previously being\nlitigated.” Jacobs v. City of Chicago, 215 F.3d 758, 767 (7th Cir.\n2000). For example, in Abbott v. Sangamon County, qualified\nimmunity did not apply despite the lack of analogous cases\nbecause it was clearly “unlawful to deploy a taser in dart\nmode against a nonviolent misdemeanant who had just been\ntased in dart mode and made no movement when, after the\nfirst tasing, the officer instructed her to turn over.” 705 F.3d\n706, 732 (7th Cir. 2013); cf. Lovett, 907 F.3d at 993 (not “egre-\ngiously” or “obviously unreasonable” to assign a severely in-\ntoxicated pre-trial detainee a top bunk from which he fell and\ndied); Kemp v. Liebel, 877 F.3d 346, 353–54 (7th Cir. 2017) (qual-\nified immunity applies on Free Exercise claim where no anal-\nogous case identified and it was not egregious or unreasona-\nble for Jewish prisoners to be unintentionally denied religious\nservices for several months after transfer to a new prison).\n At the time of Kloth’s conduct here, it was not clearly es-\ntablished that she was constitutionally required to avoid\nstanding behind Leiser as a result of his self-reporting of a\npending (albeit eventual) diagnosis. Such conduct, if intended\nto provoke a negative response from Leiser, may have been\nunprofessional and unjustified, but the law did not make clear\nthat it amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. Leiser’s\nclaim here implies that prison staff have a constitutional obli-\ngation to modify the way they do their jobs based solely on an\ninmate’s assertion that their actions elicit extreme psycholog-\nical responses. We must recognize the risk that such a rule of\nlaw, which would apply without orders from prison medical\nstaff, could create a real danger of inmates manipulating\n\f14 No. 17-3378\n\ncorrectional officers for purposes unrelated to their mental\nhealth.\n This would be an entirely different case if Leiser had been\ndiagnosed with PTSD and the medical staff had ordered cor-\nrectional staff to provide an accommodation for Leiser that\nKloth ignored. Generally, non-medical staff of jails and pris-\nons must comply with medical directives, which includes\nmental health accommodations. Mitchell v. Kallas, 895 F.3d\n492, 499 (7th Cir. 2018) (“An absence of treatment is equally\nactionable whether the inmate’s suffering is physical or psy-\nchological.”); Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742, 752–53 (7th Cir.\n2011) (refusal to provide inmate with prescribed medication\nor to follow advice of specialists can violate the Eighth\nAmendment); Ralston v. McGovern, 167 F.3d 1160, 1161–62\n(7th Cir. 1999) (reversing summary judgment because non-\nmedical prison guard’s refusal to comply with physician’s\ntherapy decision could be cruel and unusual).\n While the lack of an accommodation directive from a psy-\nchiatrist should not be treated as permission to harass inmates\nin any manner, it is not unreasonable for a non-medical prison\nstaff member to assume that a treating physician would have\nordered an accommodation if one was necessary. See Arnett,\n658 F.3d at 755 (recognizing non-medical prison staff “will\ngenerally be justified in believing that the prisoner is in capa-\nble hands” when relying on expertise of medical personnel);\nBerry v. Peterman, 604 F.3d 435, 440 (7th Cir. 2010) (“As a prac-\ntical matter, it would be unwise to require more of a nonmed-\nical staff member” than reliance on prison medical staff, as\n“the law encourages non-medical security and administrative\npersonnel at jails and prisons to defer to the professional med-\nical judgments”).\n\fNo. 17-3378 15\n\n Kloth is entitled to summary judgment because Leiser did\nnot establish that he had a clearly established constitutional\nright to an accommodation of a self-reported mental diagno-\nsis without confirmation from medical staff or existence of a\ntreatment plan. This conclusion means that defendants Stoudt\nand Richardson are also entitled to summary judgment. See,\ne.g., Gill v. City of Milwaukee, 850 F.3d 335, 342 (7th Cir. 2017)\n(failure-to-intervene claims failed where plaintiff’s right to be\nfree from certain interrogation tactics was not clearly estab-\nlished at the time).\n With high numbers of inmates suffering from mental ill-\nnesses, the scope of prison medical and non-medical staffs’\nduties toward mentally ill prisoners is an issue we can expect\nto face often. We understand that the relationships between\ninmates and prison staff are not always the model of civility,\nbut it is essential that correctional staff comply with orders\nfrom medical staff. Here there were no such orders, so Leiser\nhas not established that Kloth’s alleged conduct rose to an\nEighth Amendment violation beyond reasonable debate at\nthe time of her alleged conduct.\n We REVERSE the district court’s denial of summary judg-\nment and REMAND with instructions to grant summary\njudgment in favor of the appellants.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Jeffrey Leiser v. Karen Kloth\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-08-01\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 17-3378\\nJEFFREY D. LEISER,\\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\\n v.\\n\\nKAREN KLOTH, Correctional Sergeant, et al.,\\n Defendants-Appellants.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Western District of Wisconsin.\\n No. 3:15-cv-00768-slc — Stephen L. Crocker, Magistrate Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED SEPTEMBER 5, 2018 — DECIDED AUGUST 1, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before EASTERBROOK, HAMILTON, and SCUDDER, Circuit\\nJudges.\\n HAMILTON, Circuit Judge. Jeffrey Leiser was an inmate at\\nthe Wisconsin Stanley Correctional Institution where Ser-\\ngeant Karen Kloth was employed. Leiser, who was later diag-\\nnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder while at Stanley,\\nalleged that beginning in 2013 he self-reported his disorder to\\nKloth and “informed” her not to stand directly behind him\\nbecause doing so triggered his mental health symptoms. He\\n\\f2 No. 17-3378\\n\\nclaims Kloth did not comply with his request but instead in-\\ncreased the amount of time she stood behind him while pa-\\ntrolling common areas. Leiser filed this suit against Kloth, her\\nsupervisor, and the warden, claiming that Kloth’s behavior\\nviolated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel\\nand unusual punishment. The district court denied the de-\\nfendants’ motion for summary judgment after determining\\nthey were not entitled to qualified immunity because Leiser\\nhad a well-established right to be free from intentionally in-\\nflicted psychological harm. The defendants filed this interloc-\\nutory appeal, asking us to resolve the legal question of\\nwhether they were, in fact, entitled to qualified immunity. We\\nreverse. Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. At the\\nrelevant times, it did not violate clearly established constitu-\\ntional law for non-medical correctional staff to refuse to pro-\\nvide a prisoner with what amounts to a medical accommoda-\\ntion that had not been ordered by medical staff and the need\\nfor which was not obvious to a layperson.\\nI. Facts\\n We construe the evidence in the light most favorable to\\nLeiser as the non-moving party. See Lovett v. Herbert, 907 F.3d\\n986, 990 (7th Cir. 2018). At all times relevant, Jeffrey Leiser was\\nan inmate in the custody of the Wisconsin Department of Cor-\\nrections, housed at the Stanley Correctional Institution. Ser-\\ngeant Karen Kloth was a correctional officer who worked in\\nLeiser’s unit. Kloth reported to Unit Manager Paula Stoudt\\nand in turn to Warden Reed Richardson.\\n Leiser was housed in Stanley’s mental health unit. He\\nstruggled with numerous mental health issues, including at\\ntimes suicidal tendencies. Especially relevant to this case, the\\npsychological services staff eventually diagnosed Leiser with\\n\\fNo. 17-3378 3\\n\\nPost Traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”) stemming from a\\nsexual attack he suffered as a child. Leiser alleges that because\\nof this attack, when someone stands directly behind him, he\\nexperiences flashbacks and may become angry, knock his\\nhead against a wall, break out in a sweat, yell, scream, and\\nwant to hurt whoever triggered the episode. Leiser told staff\\nin the Psychological Services Unit he was experiencing PTSD\\nsymptoms as early as October 2014, but he was not diagnosed\\nwith the disorder until some time in the spring of 2015.\\n While at Stanley, Leiser met regularly with staff from the\\nPsychological Services Unit. On March 30, 2015, he told his\\ntreating clinician that he could not tolerate people standing\\ndirectly behind him and that his anxiety spiked when he was\\nwaiting in line for medications in the Health Services Unit.\\nHis psychiatrist then arranged for him to receive his medica-\\ntions directly from nursing staff, rather than after waiting in\\nline, to avoid this discomfort. Leiser did not receive any other\\naccommodation for his PTSD from the psychological staff.\\nStanley’s Psychological Services Unit does not inform correc-\\ntional officers of an inmate’s clinical diagnosis if no accommo-\\ndation is required.\\n At some point in 2013, well before his diagnosis, Leiser no-\\nticed that Sergeant Karen Kloth began standing behind him in\\ncommon areas, close enough, he says, to trigger his PTSD.\\nLeiser told Kloth that he suffered from PTSD and that he\\ncould not tolerate anyone standing so close behind him. Kloth\\nresponded by telling Leiser he would just have to “deal with\\nit” because she could stand where she wanted.\\n After this exchange, Leiser claims, Kloth increased the\\namount of time she stood directly behind him. Leiser submit-\\nted declarations from three other inmates who testified that\\n\\f4 No. 17-3378\\n\\nKloth stood directly behind Leiser “every time” she worked\\nand that she would stand behind him until he started shaking\\nand sweating. Another inmate, Loren Leiser (Leiser’s brother)\\ntold Kloth that she should not stand behind Leiser because of\\nhis PTSD, explained his symptoms, and that it would be her\\nfault if he “snapped on her.” Leiser’s witnesses testified that\\nafter Kloth stood behind Leiser, he would dump his tray and\\nretreat to his cell where he would shake, sweat, and talk to\\nhimself. Leiser indicated he began skipping meals when\\nKloth was on duty to avoid the risk of experiencing his PTSD\\nsymptoms.\\n Notes from treating clinicians say that Leiser was having\\nproblems with unit staff standing behind him, but they do not\\nindicate he ever identified it was Kloth. Leiser eventually\\ncomplained in writing about Kloth’s behavior to her supervi-\\nsors, Stoudt and Richardson. Though the written complaints\\nto Stoudt did not indicate Kloth was engaging in conduct\\nwhich triggered his PTSD, the letter he wrote to Warden Rich-\\nardson specifically requested that Kloth be prohibited from\\nstanding behind him for that reason. Neither Stoudt nor Rich-\\nardson acted on these complaints.\\n Leiser sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on November 30, 2015.\\nAmong other claims, Leiser alleged that Kloth was intention-\\nally causing him psychological harm by repeatedly attempt-\\ning to trigger his PTSD, which he said violated the Eighth\\nAmendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punish-\\nments. He also sued Stoudt and Richardson for failing to pro-\\ntect him from Kloth’s behavior.\\n Following a mandatory screening of the in forma pauperis\\ncomplaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the district court permit-\\nted Leiser to proceed on the Eighth Amendment claim against\\n\\fNo. 17-3378 5\\n\\nKloth and failure-to-protect claims against Stoudt and Rich-\\nardson. The defendants later moved for summary judgment.\\nThey argued that Kloth’s behavior did not rise to the level of\\ncruel and unusual punishment, and even if it did, the evi-\\ndence did not establish that the defendants knew that Leiser’s\\nPTSD was triggered when Kloth stood behind him. Regard-\\nless, they argued, defendants were entitled to qualified im-\\nmunity because if there was a constitutional violation, the le-\\ngal rule was not clearly established at the time of Kloth’s al-\\nleged conduct.\\n The court denied the defendants’ motion for summary\\njudgment, despite acknowledging it was not persuaded that\\nLeiser met the requirements discussed in Calhoun v. DeTella,\\n319 F.3d 936, 939 (7th Cir. 2003), that is, evidence that Kloth’s\\nactions were not done for a legitimate penological reason and\\nwere instead intended to humiliate and inflict psychological\\npain. The court held that a jury could find Kloth violated the\\nEighth Amendment when she increased the amount of time\\nshe spent standing behind Leiser after she learned of his\\nPTSD. Regarding qualified immunity, the district court found\\nthat Leiser had a clearly established right to be free from in-\\ntentionally inflicted psychological harm at the time of these\\nevents, making the defendants ineligible for qualified immun-\\nity. This interlocutory appeal followed.\\nII. Analysis\\n A. Appellate Jurisdiction\\n We have jurisdiction to hear this appeal because “a district\\ncourt’s denial of a claim of qualified immunity, to the extent\\nthat it turns on an issue of law, is an appealable ‘final decision’\\nwithin the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291 notwithstanding the\\n\\f6 No. 17-3378\\n\\nabsence of a final judgment.” Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511,\\n530 (1985); see also, e.g., Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 319–20\\n(1995). We review the denial de novo, considering whether the\\ndefendants were entitled to qualified immunity when view-\\ning the facts in the light most favorable to Leiser as the non-\\nmoving party. Howell v. Smith, 853 F.3d 892, 897 (7th Cir.\\n2017), citing Estate of Escobedo v. Bender, 600 F.3d 770, 778 (7th\\nCir. 2010).\\n Leiser contends we do not have jurisdiction because this\\nappeal is really a “back-door effort” to contest facts, rather\\nthan to resolve an issue of law. “[A]n appellant challenging a\\ndistrict court’s denial of qualified immunity effectively pleads\\nhimself out of court by interposing disputed factual issues in\\nhis argument.” Gutierrez v. Kermon, 722 F.3d 1003, 1010 (7th\\nCir. 2013); see also Gant v. Hartman, 924 F.3d 445, 451 (7th Cir.\\n2019) (dismissing officer’s appeal of denial of qualified im-\\nmunity because his argument depended on disputed facts).\\nFor purposes of this appeal, however, appellants\\nacknowledge that all issues of material fact must be resolved\\nin Leiser’s favor and reviewed in a light most favorable to\\nhim. See Knox v. Smith, 342 F.3d 651, 657 (7th Cir. 2003) (de-\\nfendant is not generally permitted to appeal denial of a sum-\\nmary judgment that involves mixed question of law and fact,\\n“but where, as here, one side concedes the other’s facts as to\\nwhat happened, it is a question of law”).\\n Leiser argues that the appeal focuses on the disputed fact\\nof Kloth’s intent, not a legal question, because the operative\\nquestions are whether Kloth stood behind Leiser knowing that\\nthis could trigger his PTSD and if so, whether this rose to the\\nlevel of injury cognizable by the Eighth Amendment. Even\\nframing the questions this way, we have jurisdiction.\\n\\fNo. 17-3378 7\\n\\nAppellants concede—and we assume—for purposes of sum-\\nmary judgment that Kloth did know her conduct could cause\\nLeiser psychological discomfort related to his PTSD. Whether\\nan injury rises to a level “cognizable by the Eighth Amend-\\nment” is an issue of law that we have jurisdiction to decide.\\nThis appeal does not depend on disputed facts, so we have\\njurisdiction to hear this appeal. We now move on to whether\\nthe defendants were entitled to qualified immunity.\\n B. Qualified Immunity\\n Qualified immunity is a doctrine that “protects govern-\\nment officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their\\nconduct does not violate clearly established statutory or con-\\nstitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have\\nknown.’” Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009), quoting\\nHarlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). In other words,\\nqualified immunity does not shield a government official if\\nthe alleged conduct violates a right that was clearly estab-\\nlished at the time. Thayer v. Chiczewski, 705 F.3d 237, 253 (7th\\nCir. 2012).\\n To defeat a defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff\\nmust show two elements: first, that the facts show “a violation\\nof a constitutional right,” and second, that the “constitutional\\nright was clearly established at the time of the alleged viola-\\ntion.” Gill v. City of Milwaukee, 850 F.3d 335, 340 (7th Cir. 2017).\\nWe have discretion to choose which of these elements to ad-\\ndress first. Pearson, 555 U.S. at 236. Because the second prong\\nis dispositive here, we will address only whether the right at\\nissue was clearly established under the circumstances the de-\\nfendant faced. Lovett v. Herbert, 907 F.3d 986, 991–92 (7th Cir.\\n2018), quoting Mason-Funk v. City of Neenah, 895 F.3d 504, 507–\\n08 (7th Cir. 2018).\\n\\f8 No. 17-3378\\n\\n While qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, once\\nraised, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to defeat it. Purvis v.\\nOest, 614 F.3d 713, 717 (7th Cir. 2010). To meet his burden on\\nthis prong, Leiser needed to “show either a reasonably analo-\\ngous case that has both articulated the right at issue and ap-\\nplied it to a factual circumstance similar to the one at hand or\\nthat the violation was so obvious that a reasonable person\\nnecessarily would have recognized it as a violation of the\\nlaw.” Howell, 853 F.3d at 897, quoting Chan v. Wodnicki, 123\\nF.3d 1005, 1008 (7th Cir. 1997). This requirement does not\\nmean Leiser had to find a case “on all fours” with the facts\\nhere. Howell, 853 F.3d at 897, citing Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730,\\n741 (2002). He did, however, need to show some settled au-\\nthority that would have shown a reasonable officer in Kloth’s\\nposition that her alleged actions violated the Constitution.\\nMullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305, 308 (2015).\\n “To be clearly established, a right must be sufficiently clear\\nthat every reasonable official would have understood that\\nwhat he is doing violates that right” meaning that “existing\\nprecedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional\\nquestion beyond debate.” Reichle v. Howards, 566 U.S. 658, 664\\n(2012) (cleaned up). That is, the right must be clearly estab-\\nlished to a degree of specificity such that a reasonable govern-\\nment official would be able to identify the violation with a\\nspecific set of facts.\\n In deciding a question of qualified immunity, the level of\\nspecificity at which the legal question is asked is often deci-\\nsive, and it is possible to be too general and too specific. See,\\ne.g., Thompson v. Cope, 900 F.3d 414, 421–22 (7th Cir. 2018). We\\nmust determine whether a right is clearly established “in light\\nof the specific context of the case, not as a broad general\\n\\fNo. 17-3378 9\\n\\nproposition.” Lovett, 907 F.3d at 992, quoting Mullenix, 136 S.\\nCt. at 308. This requires us to consider “whether the violative\\nnature of particular conduct is clearly established.” Mullenix,\\n136 S. Ct. at 308, quoting Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 742\\n(2011). The Supreme Court has “repeatedly told courts … not\\nto define clearly established law at a high level of generality.”\\nMullenix, 136 S. Ct. at 308, see also al-Kidd, 563 U.S. at 742\\n(“The general proposition, for example, that an unreasonable\\nsearch or seizure violates the Fourth Amendment is of little\\nhelp in determining whether the violative nature of particular\\nconduct is clearly established.”).\\n We first look to whether the Supreme Court or this circuit\\nhas previously held that conduct analogous to the present\\ncase violates the right at issue. Lovett, 907 F.3d at 992. The lack\\nof specific precedent is not necessarily fatal to a qualified im-\\nmunity defense because the Supreme Court has recognized\\nthat “officials can still be on notice that their conduct violates\\nestablished law … in novel factual circumstances.” Safford\\nUnified Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Redding, 557 U.S. 364, 377–78 (2009),\\nquoting Hope, 536 U.S. at 741–42 (no qualified immunity when\\nprison guards handcuffed inmate to hitching post for seven\\nhours without regular water or bathroom breaks for his dis-\\nruptive behavior, despite his having already been subdued).\\nIf no existing precedent puts the conduct beyond debate, we\\nnext consider if this is one of the rare cases, like Hope, where\\nthe state official’s alleged conduct is so egregious that it is an\\nobvious violation of a constitutional right. Abbott v. Sangamon\\nCounty, 705 F.3d 706, 723–24 (7th Cir. 2013) (no qualified im-\\nmunity for police officer for excessive force claims where of-\\nficer tased nonviolent misdemeanant who did not respond to\\ninstructions to turn over after being tased a first time).\\n\\f10 No. 17-3378\\n\\n The district court determined that Leiser had “a clearly es-\\ntablished right to be free from intentionally inflicted psycho-\\nlogical harm.” Leiser frames the question differently, as\\n“whether Kloth subjected Leiser to calculated harassment un-\\nrelated to prison needs.” Both of these statements are at too\\nhigh a level of generality. See Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194,\\n199–200 (2004) (remanding denial of summary judgment on\\nqualified immunity because court of appeals found fair warn-\\ning in general tests regarding prohibition of shooting fleeing\\nsuspects rather than the more “particularized” fact of shoot-\\ning fleeing suspects “when persons in the immediate area are\\nat risk from that flight”).\\n As we see the case, the issue is whether it was clearly es-\\ntablished that Kloth was constitutionally required to accom-\\nmodate Leiser’s specific and unique mental health need based\\nsolely on his self-reporting and demands of other inmates, ab-\\nsent instructions from the medical staff.\\n “The Eighth Amendment prohibits unnecessary and wan-\\nton infliction of pain, thus forbidding punishment that is ‘so\\ntotally without penological justification that it results in the\\ngratuitous infliction of suffering.’” Calhoun v. DeTella, 319 F.3d\\n936, 939 (7th Cir. 2003), quoting Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153,\\n173 (1976). This prohibition against cruel and unusual pun-\\nishment of inmates includes both physical and psychological\\nharm. See Beal v. Foster, 803 F.3d 356, 357–58 (7th Cir. 2015)\\n(reversing dismissal of § 1983 claim against prison guard who\\nallegedly made remarks labelling a male inmate as homosex-\\nual, allegedly causing inmate severe psychological harm due\\nto worry of increased likelihood of sexual assaults, thus mak-\\ning it more than “simple verbal harassment”), quoting Wa-\\ntison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012).\\n\\fNo. 17-3378 11\\n\\n Inmates have long had a clearly established right to be free\\nfrom intentionally inflicted psychological torment and humil-\\niation unrelated to penological interests. Hudson v. Palmer, 468\\nU.S. 517, 530 (1984) (mentioning the Eighth Amendment pro-\\ntects against “calculated harassment unrelated to prison\\nneeds”); King v. McCarty, 781 F.3d 889, 892 (7th Cir. 2015) (re-\\nversing dismissal; inmate plausibly alleged see-through\\njumpsuit that exposed his genitals during transfer to new\\nprison had no penological purpose and only intended to hu-\\nmiliate and inflict psychological pain in violation of Eighth\\nAmendment); Beal, 803 F.3d at 359 (jury could find correc-\\ntional officer’s verbal and nonverbal harassment was cruel\\nand unusual because it “may have made him a pariah to his\\nfellow inmates and inflicted significant psychological harm”);\\nMays v. Springborn, 575 F.3d 643, 649 (7th Cir. 2009) (reversing\\nsummary judgment for prison guards in light of inmates’ al-\\nlegations of strip searches publicly conducted in cold room\\nwith guards who did not change their latex gloves and made\\ndemeaning comments to inmates; genuine dispute over\\nwhether searches “were conducted in a harassing manner in-\\ntended to humiliate and cause psychological pain”). How-\\never, “not every psychological discomfort a prisoner endures\\namounts to a constitutional violation.” Calhoun, 319 F.3d at\\n939.\\n Leiser argues that Kloth had a constitutional obligation to\\nmodify her movements around the common area to avoid\\nstanding directly behind Leiser after he informed her that this\\nproximity to him exacerbated his self-reported PTSD. How-\\never, none of the cases from this circuit he relies upon have\\nfacts closely analogous to those here. Se Davis v. Wessel, 792\\nF.3d 793, 796 (7th Cir. 2015) (body restraints); Mays, 575 F.3d\\n\\f12 No. 17-3378\\n\\nat 649 (strip searches); Delaney v. DeTella, 256 F.3d 679, 681–82\\n(7th Cir. 2001) (conditions of confinement).\\n The cases Leiser cites from other circuits also fail to show\\nthis right was clearly established. The only authority he points\\nto that deals with psychological harm rather than physical\\nharm or threats is OʹConnor v. Huard, 117 F.3d 12, 17 (1st Cir.\\n1997), where the First Circuit considered the denial of quali-\\nfied immunity under a plain error standard because the de-\\nfendant had failed to preserve the affirmative defense. There,\\na jury found for the former pretrial detainee who had claimed\\nthat a correctional officer deprived him of mental health med-\\nication and intentionally triggered his anxiety attacks. Id. at\\n15. The district judge denied the officer’s motion for judgment\\nnotwithstanding the verdict, where she asserted for the first\\ntime that she was entitled to qualified immunity. The First\\nCircuit affirmed the verdict for the plaintiff because the officer\\n“never brought forward any evidence suggesting that her ac-\\ntions were objectively reasonable in light of [plaintiff’s] clearly\\nestablished due process right.” Id. at 17. Though O’Connor\\npresents closer facts than the other cases Leiser cites, it in-\\nvolved the denial of access to prescribed medications, which\\nwould clearly interfere with prescribed medical treatment. In\\naddition, the differences in procedural posture and standard\\nof review undermine his argument that the right at issue here\\nwas clearly established at the time of Kloth’s conduct.\\n Because he does not provide an analogous case, we now\\nconsider whether Leiser established that Kloth’s conduct was\\nso outrageous that no reasonable correctional officer would\\nhave believed the conduct was legal. He did not meet this bur-\\nden. As noted above, in some “rare cases,” such as Hope v.\\nPelzer, where the constitutional violation is “patently\\n\\fNo. 17-3378 13\\n\\nobvious,” the plaintiffs may not need to cite closely analogous\\ncases because “widespread compliance with a clearly appar-\\nent law may have prevented the issue from previously being\\nlitigated.” Jacobs v. City of Chicago, 215 F.3d 758, 767 (7th Cir.\\n2000). For example, in Abbott v. Sangamon County, qualified\\nimmunity did not apply despite the lack of analogous cases\\nbecause it was clearly “unlawful to deploy a taser in dart\\nmode against a nonviolent misdemeanant who had just been\\ntased in dart mode and made no movement when, after the\\nfirst tasing, the officer instructed her to turn over.” 705 F.3d\\n706, 732 (7th Cir. 2013); cf. Lovett, 907 F.3d at 993 (not “egre-\\ngiously” or “obviously unreasonable” to assign a severely in-\\ntoxicated pre-trial detainee a top bunk from which he fell and\\ndied); Kemp v. Liebel, 877 F.3d 346, 353–54 (7th Cir. 2017) (qual-\\nified immunity applies on Free Exercise claim where no anal-\\nogous case identified and it was not egregious or unreasona-\\nble for Jewish prisoners to be unintentionally denied religious\\nservices for several months after transfer to a new prison).\\n At the time of Kloth’s conduct here, it was not clearly es-\\ntablished that she was constitutionally required to avoid\\nstanding behind Leiser as a result of his self-reporting of a\\npending (albeit eventual) diagnosis. Such conduct, if intended\\nto provoke a negative response from Leiser, may have been\\nunprofessional and unjustified, but the law did not make clear\\nthat it amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. Leiser’s\\nclaim here implies that prison staff have a constitutional obli-\\ngation to modify the way they do their jobs based solely on an\\ninmate’s assertion that their actions elicit extreme psycholog-\\nical responses. We must recognize the risk that such a rule of\\nlaw, which would apply without orders from prison medical\\nstaff, could create a real danger of inmates manipulating\\n\\f14 No. 17-3378\\n\\ncorrectional officers for purposes unrelated to their mental\\nhealth.\\n This would be an entirely different case if Leiser had been\\ndiagnosed with PTSD and the medical staff had ordered cor-\\nrectional staff to provide an accommodation for Leiser that\\nKloth ignored. Generally, non-medical staff of jails and pris-\\nons must comply with medical directives, which includes\\nmental health accommodations. Mitchell v. Kallas, 895 F.3d\\n492, 499 (7th Cir. 2018) (“An absence of treatment is equally\\nactionable whether the inmate’s suffering is physical or psy-\\nchological.”); Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742, 752–53 (7th Cir.\\n2011) (refusal to provide inmate with prescribed medication\\nor to follow advice of specialists can violate the Eighth\\nAmendment); Ralston v. McGovern, 167 F.3d 1160, 1161–62\\n(7th Cir. 1999) (reversing summary judgment because non-\\nmedical prison guard’s refusal to comply with physician’s\\ntherapy decision could be cruel and unusual).\\n While the lack of an accommodation directive from a psy-\\nchiatrist should not be treated as permission to harass inmates\\nin any manner, it is not unreasonable for a non-medical prison\\nstaff member to assume that a treating physician would have\\nordered an accommodation if one was necessary. See Arnett,\\n658 F.3d at 755 (recognizing non-medical prison staff “will\\ngenerally be justified in believing that the prisoner is in capa-\\nble hands” when relying on expertise of medical personnel);\\nBerry v. Peterman, 604 F.3d 435, 440 (7th Cir. 2010) (“As a prac-\\ntical matter, it would be unwise to require more of a nonmed-\\nical staff member” than reliance on prison medical staff, as\\n“the law encourages non-medical security and administrative\\npersonnel at jails and prisons to defer to the professional med-\\nical judgments”).\\n\\fNo. 17-3378 15\\n\\n Kloth is entitled to summary judgment because Leiser did\\nnot establish that he had a clearly established constitutional\\nright to an accommodation of a self-reported mental diagno-\\nsis without confirmation from medical staff or existence of a\\ntreatment plan. This conclusion means that defendants Stoudt\\nand Richardson are also entitled to summary judgment. See,\\ne.g., Gill v. City of Milwaukee, 850 F.3d 335, 342 (7th Cir. 2017)\\n(failure-to-intervene claims failed where plaintiff’s right to be\\nfree from certain interrogation tactics was not clearly estab-\\nlished at the time).\\n With high numbers of inmates suffering from mental ill-\\nnesses, the scope of prison medical and non-medical staffs’\\nduties toward mentally ill prisoners is an issue we can expect\\nto face often. We understand that the relationships between\\ninmates and prison staff are not always the model of civility,\\nbut it is essential that correctional staff comply with orders\\nfrom medical staff. Here there were no such orders, so Leiser\\nhas not established that Kloth’s alleged conduct rose to an\\nEighth Amendment violation beyond reasonable debate at\\nthe time of her alleged conduct.\\n We REVERSE the district court’s denial of summary judg-\\nment and REMAND with instructions to grant summary\\njudgment in favor of the appellants.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3774,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4645284,"string":"4,645,284"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Mark Richardson v. CTA"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-08-02"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-2199"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before: JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge Nos.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"Defendant-Appellee. Judge\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n Chicago, Illinois 60604\\n\\n August 2, 2019\\n\\n Before:\\n\\n JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge\\n\\n MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge\\n\\n MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge\\n\\n\\nNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\\n Appeals from the United States District\\nMARK RICHARDSON, Court for the Northern District of\\n Plaintiff-Appellant, Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n\\n v. No. 16-cv-03027\\n\\nCHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY, John Robert Blakey,\\n Defendant-Appellee. Judge.\\n\\n ORDER\\n\\n The opinion issued in the above-entitled case on June 12, 2019, is hereby amended\\nas follows:\\n\\n On Page 7, line 23, the last sentence of the paragraph, which states,\\n\\n EEOC regulations interpreting the ADA are entitled to\\n deference under Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources\\n Defense Council, Inc., unless they are “arbitrary, capricious, or\\n manifestly contrary to the statute.” 467 U.S. 837, 844 (1984);\\n see Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 130 F.3d 893, 899 n.3 (10th\\n Cir. 1997).\\n\\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 Page 2\\n\\n is amended to read,\\n\\n We view EEOC regulations interpreting the ADA’s\\n definitions as “instructive guidance.” Steffen v. Donahoe, 680\\n F.3d 738, 743 n.3 (7th Cir. 2012); see also Waldrip v. Gen. Elec.\\n Co., 325 F.3d 652, 655 n.1 (5th Cir. 2003) (EEOC regulations\\n interpreting 42 U.S.C. § 12102 are “persuasive authority”).1\\n\\n Additionally, on Page 12, line 20, the last sentence of the paragraph, which\\n states,\\n\\n While EEOC interpretive guidance is “not entitled to full\\n Chevron deference,” it does “reflect a body of experience and\\n informed judgment to which courts and litigants may\\n properly resort for guidance” and is therefore “entitled to a\\n measure of respect under the less deferential Skidmore [v. Swift\\n & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944)] standard.” Fed. Express Corp. v.\\n Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389, 399 (2008) (citations and internal\\n quotation marks omitted); see Gile v. United Airlines, Inc., 95\\n F.3d 492, 497 (7th Cir. 1996).\\n\\n shall be removed.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 1 Because Congress did not delegate authority to the EEOC to implement 42 U.S.C. § 12102, the precise\\ndegree of deference courts owe to EEOC regulations interpreting the term “disability” is an open question.\\nSee Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky., Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184, 194 (2002) (“Because both parties accept the EEOC\\nregulations as reasonable, we assume without deciding that they are, and we have no occasion to decide\\nwhat level of deference, if any, they are due.”), superseded by statute, ADAAA, 122 Stat. 3553; Sutton v. United\\nAir Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471, 480 (1999) (same), superseded by statute, ADAAA, 122 Stat. 3553; Albertson’s, Inc.\\nv. Kirkingburg, 527 U.S. 555, 563 n.10 (1999) (same); see also Winsley v. Cook County, 563 F.3d 598, 603 n.2 (7th\\nCir. 2009) (EEOC interpretations of § 12102 are “not necessarily entitled to any special deference by the\\ncourts”).\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4422537/\", \"author_raw\": \"Defendant-Appellee. Judge\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"JOEL M FLAUM"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"MICHAEL S KANNE"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"MICHAEL Y SCUDDER"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"JOEL M FLAUM\": \", Circuit\", \"MICHAEL S KANNE\": \", Circuit\", \"MICHAEL Y SCUDDER\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645284/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":8,"string":"8"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Mark Richardson v. CTA\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-08-02\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nUnited States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n Chicago, Illinois 60604\n\n August 2, 2019\n\n Before:\n\n JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge\n\n MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge\n\n MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge\n\n\nNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\n Appeals from the United States District\nMARK RICHARDSON, Court for the Northern District of\n Plaintiff-Appellant, Illinois, Eastern Division.\n\n v. No. 16-cv-03027\n\nCHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY, John Robert Blakey,\n Defendant-Appellee. Judge.\n\n ORDER\n\n The opinion issued in the above-entitled case on June 12, 2019, is hereby amended\nas follows:\n\n On Page 7, line 23, the last sentence of the paragraph, which states,\n\n EEOC regulations interpreting the ADA are entitled to\n deference under Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources\n Defense Council, Inc., unless they are “arbitrary, capricious, or\n manifestly contrary to the statute.” 467 U.S. 837, 844 (1984);\n see Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 130 F.3d 893, 899 n.3 (10th\n Cir. 1997).\n\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 Page 2\n\n is amended to read,\n\n We view EEOC regulations interpreting the ADA’s\n definitions as “instructive guidance.” Steffen v. Donahoe, 680\n F.3d 738, 743 n.3 (7th Cir. 2012); see also Waldrip v. Gen. Elec.\n Co., 325 F.3d 652, 655 n.1 (5th Cir. 2003) (EEOC regulations\n interpreting 42 U.S.C. § 12102 are “persuasive authority”).1\n\n Additionally, on Page 12, line 20, the last sentence of the paragraph, which\n states,\n\n While EEOC interpretive guidance is “not entitled to full\n Chevron deference,” it does “reflect a body of experience and\n informed judgment to which courts and litigants may\n properly resort for guidance” and is therefore “entitled to a\n measure of respect under the less deferential Skidmore [v. Swift\n & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944)] standard.” Fed. Express Corp. v.\n Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389, 399 (2008) (citations and internal\n quotation marks omitted); see Gile v. United Airlines, Inc., 95\n F.3d 492, 497 (7th Cir. 1996).\n\n shall be removed.\n\n\n\n\n 1 Because Congress did not delegate authority to the EEOC to implement 42 U.S.C. § 12102, the precise\ndegree of deference courts owe to EEOC regulations interpreting the term “disability” is an open question.\nSee Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky., Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184, 194 (2002) (“Because both parties accept the EEOC\nregulations as reasonable, we assume without deciding that they are, and we have no occasion to decide\nwhat level of deference, if any, they are due.”), superseded by statute, ADAAA, 122 Stat. 3553; Sutton v. United\nAir Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471, 480 (1999) (same), superseded by statute, ADAAA, 122 Stat. 3553; Albertson’s, Inc.\nv. Kirkingburg, 527 U.S. 555, 563 n.10 (1999) (same); see also Winsley v. Cook County, 563 F.3d 598, 603 n.2 (7th\nCir. 2009) (EEOC interpretations of § 12102 are “not necessarily entitled to any special deference by the\ncourts”).\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Mark Richardson v. CTA\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-08-02\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nUnited States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n Chicago, Illinois 60604\\n\\n August 2, 2019\\n\\n Before:\\n\\n JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge\\n\\n MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge\\n\\n MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge\\n\\n\\nNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\\n Appeals from the United States District\\nMARK RICHARDSON, Court for the Northern District of\\n Plaintiff-Appellant, Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n\\n v. No. 16-cv-03027\\n\\nCHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY, John Robert Blakey,\\n Defendant-Appellee. Judge.\\n\\n ORDER\\n\\n The opinion issued in the above-entitled case on June 12, 2019, is hereby amended\\nas follows:\\n\\n On Page 7, line 23, the last sentence of the paragraph, which states,\\n\\n EEOC regulations interpreting the ADA are entitled to\\n deference under Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources\\n Defense Council, Inc., unless they are “arbitrary, capricious, or\\n manifestly contrary to the statute.” 467 U.S. 837, 844 (1984);\\n see Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 130 F.3d 893, 899 n.3 (10th\\n Cir. 1997).\\n\\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 Page 2\\n\\n is amended to read,\\n\\n We view EEOC regulations interpreting the ADA’s\\n definitions as “instructive guidance.” Steffen v. Donahoe, 680\\n F.3d 738, 743 n.3 (7th Cir. 2012); see also Waldrip v. Gen. Elec.\\n Co., 325 F.3d 652, 655 n.1 (5th Cir. 2003) (EEOC regulations\\n interpreting 42 U.S.C. § 12102 are “persuasive authority”).1\\n\\n Additionally, on Page 12, line 20, the last sentence of the paragraph, which\\n states,\\n\\n While EEOC interpretive guidance is “not entitled to full\\n Chevron deference,” it does “reflect a body of experience and\\n informed judgment to which courts and litigants may\\n properly resort for guidance” and is therefore “entitled to a\\n measure of respect under the less deferential Skidmore [v. Swift\\n & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944)] standard.” Fed. Express Corp. v.\\n Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389, 399 (2008) (citations and internal\\n quotation marks omitted); see Gile v. United Airlines, Inc., 95\\n F.3d 492, 497 (7th Cir. 1996).\\n\\n shall be removed.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 1 Because Congress did not delegate authority to the EEOC to implement 42 U.S.C. § 12102, the precise\\ndegree of deference courts owe to EEOC regulations interpreting the term “disability” is an open question.\\nSee Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky., Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184, 194 (2002) (“Because both parties accept the EEOC\\nregulations as reasonable, we assume without deciding that they are, and we have no occasion to decide\\nwhat level of deference, if any, they are due.”), superseded by statute, ADAAA, 122 Stat. 3553; Sutton v. United\\nAir Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471, 480 (1999) (same), superseded by statute, ADAAA, 122 Stat. 3553; Albertson’s, Inc.\\nv. Kirkingburg, 527 U.S. 555, 563 n.10 (1999) (same); see also Winsley v. Cook County, 563 F.3d 598, 603 n.2 (7th\\nCir. 2009) (EEOC interpretations of § 12102 are “not necessarily entitled to any special deference by the\\ncourts”).\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3775,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4645285,"string":"4,645,285"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Mark Richardson v. CTA"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-08-02"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"17-3508"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Per Curiam\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4422538/\", \"author_raw\": \"\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":""},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645285/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":8,"string":"8"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Mark Richardson v. CTA\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-08-02\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Mark Richardson v. CTA\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-08-02\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3776,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4645327,"string":"4,645,327"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Mark Richardson v. CTA"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-08-02"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-2199"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before: JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge Nos.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"Defendant-Appellee. Judge\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n Chicago, Illinois 60604\\n\\n August 2, 2019\\n\\n Before:\\n\\n JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge\\n\\n MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge\\n\\n MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge\\n\\n\\nNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\\n Appeals from the United States District\\nMARK RICHARDSON, Court for the Northern District of\\n Plaintiff-Appellant, Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n\\n v. No. 16-cv-03027\\n\\nCHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY, John Robert Blakey,\\n Defendant-Appellee. Judge.\\n\\n ORDER\\n\\n The opinion issued in the above-entitled case on June 12, 2019, is hereby amended\\nas follows:\\n\\n On Page 7, line 23, the last sentence of the paragraph, which states,\\n\\n EEOC regulations interpreting the ADA are entitled to\\n deference under Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources\\n Defense Council, Inc., unless they are “arbitrary, capricious, or\\n manifestly contrary to the statute.” 467 U.S. 837, 844 (1984);\\n see Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 130 F.3d 893, 899 n.3 (10th\\n Cir. 1997).\\n\\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 Page 2\\n\\n is amended to read,\\n\\n We view EEOC regulations interpreting the ADA’s\\n definitions as “instructive guidance.” Steffen v. Donahoe, 680\\n F.3d 738, 743 n.3 (7th Cir. 2012); see also Waldrip v. Gen. Elec.\\n Co., 325 F.3d 652, 655 n.1 (5th Cir. 2003) (EEOC regulations\\n interpreting 42 U.S.C. § 12102 are “persuasive authority”).1\\n\\n Additionally, on Page 12, line 20, the last sentence of the paragraph, which\\n states,\\n\\n While EEOC interpretive guidance is “not entitled to full\\n Chevron deference,” it does “reflect a body of experience and\\n informed judgment to which courts and litigants may\\n properly resort for guidance” and is therefore “entitled to a\\n measure of respect under the less deferential Skidmore [v. Swift\\n & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944)] standard.” Fed. Express Corp. v.\\n Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389, 399 (2008) (citations and internal\\n quotation marks omitted); see Gile v. United Airlines, Inc., 95\\n F.3d 492, 497 (7th Cir. 1996).\\n\\n shall be removed.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 1 Because Congress did not delegate authority to the EEOC to implement 42 U.S.C. § 12102, the precise\\ndegree of deference courts owe to EEOC regulations interpreting the term “disability” is an open question.\\nSee Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky., Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184, 194 (2002) (“Because both parties accept the EEOC\\nregulations as reasonable, we assume without deciding that they are, and we have no occasion to decide\\nwhat level of deference, if any, they are due.”), superseded by statute, ADAAA, 122 Stat. 3553; Sutton v. United\\nAir Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471, 480 (1999) (same), superseded by statute, ADAAA, 122 Stat. 3553; Albertson’s, Inc.\\nv. Kirkingburg, 527 U.S. 555, 563 n.10 (1999) (same); see also Winsley v. Cook County, 563 F.3d 598, 603 n.2 (7th\\nCir. 2009) (EEOC interpretations of § 12102 are “not necessarily entitled to any special deference by the\\ncourts”).\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4422580/\", \"author_raw\": \"Defendant-Appellee. Judge\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"JOEL M FLAUM"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"MICHAEL S KANNE"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"MICHAEL Y SCUDDER"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"JOEL M FLAUM\": \", Circuit\", \"MICHAEL S KANNE\": \", Circuit\", \"MICHAEL Y SCUDDER\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645327/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":8,"string":"8"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Mark Richardson v. CTA\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-08-02\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nUnited States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n Chicago, Illinois 60604\n\n August 2, 2019\n\n Before:\n\n JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge\n\n MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge\n\n MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge\n\n\nNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\n Appeals from the United States District\nMARK RICHARDSON, Court for the Northern District of\n Plaintiff-Appellant, Illinois, Eastern Division.\n\n v. No. 16-cv-03027\n\nCHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY, John Robert Blakey,\n Defendant-Appellee. Judge.\n\n ORDER\n\n The opinion issued in the above-entitled case on June 12, 2019, is hereby amended\nas follows:\n\n On Page 7, line 23, the last sentence of the paragraph, which states,\n\n EEOC regulations interpreting the ADA are entitled to\n deference under Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources\n Defense Council, Inc., unless they are “arbitrary, capricious, or\n manifestly contrary to the statute.” 467 U.S. 837, 844 (1984);\n see Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 130 F.3d 893, 899 n.3 (10th\n Cir. 1997).\n\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 Page 2\n\n is amended to read,\n\n We view EEOC regulations interpreting the ADA’s\n definitions as “instructive guidance.” Steffen v. Donahoe, 680\n F.3d 738, 743 n.3 (7th Cir. 2012); see also Waldrip v. Gen. Elec.\n Co., 325 F.3d 652, 655 n.1 (5th Cir. 2003) (EEOC regulations\n interpreting 42 U.S.C. § 12102 are “persuasive authority”).1\n\n Additionally, on Page 12, line 20, the last sentence of the paragraph, which\n states,\n\n While EEOC interpretive guidance is “not entitled to full\n Chevron deference,” it does “reflect a body of experience and\n informed judgment to which courts and litigants may\n properly resort for guidance” and is therefore “entitled to a\n measure of respect under the less deferential Skidmore [v. Swift\n & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944)] standard.” Fed. Express Corp. v.\n Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389, 399 (2008) (citations and internal\n quotation marks omitted); see Gile v. United Airlines, Inc., 95\n F.3d 492, 497 (7th Cir. 1996).\n\n shall be removed.\n\n\n\n\n 1 Because Congress did not delegate authority to the EEOC to implement 42 U.S.C. § 12102, the precise\ndegree of deference courts owe to EEOC regulations interpreting the term “disability” is an open question.\nSee Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky., Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184, 194 (2002) (“Because both parties accept the EEOC\nregulations as reasonable, we assume without deciding that they are, and we have no occasion to decide\nwhat level of deference, if any, they are due.”), superseded by statute, ADAAA, 122 Stat. 3553; Sutton v. United\nAir Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471, 480 (1999) (same), superseded by statute, ADAAA, 122 Stat. 3553; Albertson’s, Inc.\nv. Kirkingburg, 527 U.S. 555, 563 n.10 (1999) (same); see also Winsley v. Cook County, 563 F.3d 598, 603 n.2 (7th\nCir. 2009) (EEOC interpretations of § 12102 are “not necessarily entitled to any special deference by the\ncourts”).\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Mark Richardson v. CTA\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-08-02\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nUnited States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n Chicago, Illinois 60604\\n\\n August 2, 2019\\n\\n Before:\\n\\n JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge\\n\\n MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge\\n\\n MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge\\n\\n\\nNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\\n Appeals from the United States District\\nMARK RICHARDSON, Court for the Northern District of\\n Plaintiff-Appellant, Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n\\n v. No. 16-cv-03027\\n\\nCHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY, John Robert Blakey,\\n Defendant-Appellee. Judge.\\n\\n ORDER\\n\\n The opinion issued in the above-entitled case on June 12, 2019, is hereby amended\\nas follows:\\n\\n On Page 7, line 23, the last sentence of the paragraph, which states,\\n\\n EEOC regulations interpreting the ADA are entitled to\\n deference under Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources\\n Defense Council, Inc., unless they are “arbitrary, capricious, or\\n manifestly contrary to the statute.” 467 U.S. 837, 844 (1984);\\n see Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 130 F.3d 893, 899 n.3 (10th\\n Cir. 1997).\\n\\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 Page 2\\n\\n is amended to read,\\n\\n We view EEOC regulations interpreting the ADA’s\\n definitions as “instructive guidance.” Steffen v. Donahoe, 680\\n F.3d 738, 743 n.3 (7th Cir. 2012); see also Waldrip v. Gen. Elec.\\n Co., 325 F.3d 652, 655 n.1 (5th Cir. 2003) (EEOC regulations\\n interpreting 42 U.S.C. § 12102 are “persuasive authority”).1\\n\\n Additionally, on Page 12, line 20, the last sentence of the paragraph, which\\n states,\\n\\n While EEOC interpretive guidance is “not entitled to full\\n Chevron deference,” it does “reflect a body of experience and\\n informed judgment to which courts and litigants may\\n properly resort for guidance” and is therefore “entitled to a\\n measure of respect under the less deferential Skidmore [v. Swift\\n & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944)] standard.” Fed. Express Corp. v.\\n Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389, 399 (2008) (citations and internal\\n quotation marks omitted); see Gile v. United Airlines, Inc., 95\\n F.3d 492, 497 (7th Cir. 1996).\\n\\n shall be removed.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 1 Because Congress did not delegate authority to the EEOC to implement 42 U.S.C. § 12102, the precise\\ndegree of deference courts owe to EEOC regulations interpreting the term “disability” is an open question.\\nSee Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky., Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184, 194 (2002) (“Because both parties accept the EEOC\\nregulations as reasonable, we assume without deciding that they are, and we have no occasion to decide\\nwhat level of deference, if any, they are due.”), superseded by statute, ADAAA, 122 Stat. 3553; Sutton v. United\\nAir Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471, 480 (1999) (same), superseded by statute, ADAAA, 122 Stat. 3553; Albertson’s, Inc.\\nv. Kirkingburg, 527 U.S. 555, 563 n.10 (1999) (same); see also Winsley v. Cook County, 563 F.3d 598, 603 n.2 (7th\\nCir. 2009) (EEOC interpretations of § 12102 are “not necessarily entitled to any special deference by the\\ncourts”).\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3777,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4645377,"string":"4,645,377"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"SPORTFUEL, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PEPSICO, INC. and the Gatorade Company, Defendants-Appellees."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"SportFuel, Inc. v. PepsiCo, Inc."},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-08-02"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-3010"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Kanne, Barrett, Brennan\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"Michael Stephen Kanne\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18‐3010\\nSPORTFUEL, INC.,\\n Plaintiff‐Appellant,\\n v.\\n\\nPEPSICO, INC. and\\nTHE GATORADE COMPANY,\\n Defendants‐Appellees.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 16‐cv‐7868 — Matthew F. Kennelly, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED APRIL 9, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 2, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before KANNE, BARRETT, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\\n KANNE, Circuit Judge. SportFuel appeals the district court’s\\ngrant of summary judgment for Gatorade and its parent com‐\\npany, PepsiCo. SportFuel brought this suit against Gatorade\\nalleging violations of its trademark after Gatorade rebranded\\nitself with the slogan, “Gatorade The Sports Fuel Company.”\\nThe district court deemed Gatorade’s slogan a fair use pro‐\\ntected by the Lanham Act. We affirm.\\n\\f2 No. 18‐3010\\n\\n\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n SportFuel is a Chicago‐based sports nutrition and well‐\\nness consulting firm whose clients include several of Chi‐\\ncago’s prominent professional sports teams and their athletes.\\nThe company provides personalized nutrition consulting ser‐\\nvices to professional and amateur athletes, but also sells\\nSportFuel‐branded dietary supplements. SportFuel holds two\\nregistered trademarks for “SportFuel.” It registered the first\\nfor “food nutrition consultation, nutrition counseling, and\\nproviding information about dietary supplements and nutri‐\\ntion.” After several years of use, SportFuel’s trademark be‐\\ncame “incontestable” in 2013 under 15 U.S.C. § 1065. Sport‐\\nFuel also registered a trademark in 2015 for “goods and ser‐\\nvices related to dietary supplements and sports drinks en‐\\nhanced with vitamins.”\\n Gatorade was created in 1965 at the University of Florida\\nCollege of Medicine and public sales began several years later.\\nUndoubtedly, Gatorade is more widely known. It is the offi‐\\ncial sports drink of the NBA, PGA, MLB, MLS, and many\\nother professional and collegiate organizations. Whether by\\ntelevision imagery of victorious athletes drenching their\\ncoaches or teammates with a Gatorade shower from a distinc‐\\ntive cooler, or through aggressive national media marketing\\ncampaigns, Gatorade became a household name.\\n In addition to its traditional sports drinks, Gatorade now\\ncustomizes its sports drink line by selling formulas that are\\ntailored to the nutritional needs of individual professional\\nathletes. The company also sells numerous other sports nutri‐\\ntion products beyond sports drinks. It began to publicly de‐\\nscribe its products as sports fuels in 2013. Seeking to broaden\\nits public image to reflect its expanded variety of products,\\n\\fNo. 18‐3010 3\\n\\n\\nGatorade began a rebranding effort. In 2016 it registered the\\ntrademark “Gatorade The Sports Fuel Company” with the\\nUnited States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”). Notably,\\nGatorade disclaimed the exclusive use of “The Sports Fuel\\nCompany” after the PTO advised the company that the\\nphrase was merely descriptive of its products.\\n The only link between SportFuel and Gatorade is a nutri‐\\ntionist and dietician named Julie Burns, who founded Sport‐\\nFuel in 1993. Burns had a history of working with Gatorade:\\nshe served as a nutritionist on the Gatorade Sports Science In‐\\nstitute’s Sports Nutrition Advisory Board from 1995 until\\n2003. Burns became aware of Gatorade’s rebranding efforts\\nand the alleged trademark infringement when she saw a Ga‐\\ntorade commercial featuring the new slogan. SportFuel filed\\nsuit against Gatorade and PepsiCo in August 2016. Its com‐\\nplaint alleged trademark infringement (15 U.S.C. § 1051), un‐\\nfair competition, and false designation of origin in violation\\nof the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)). Similarly, SportFuel\\nasserted claims of trademark infringement and unfair compe‐\\ntition in violation of Illinois law. See 815 Ill. Comp. Stat.\\n§§ 505/1, 510/1. Gatorade raised counterclaims for a cancella‐\\ntion of SportFuel’s trademark.\\n Gatorade moved to exclude SportFuel’s expert’s testi‐\\nmony and survey evidence concerning the likelihood of con‐\\nsumer confusion from Gatorade’s use of the slogan. Gatorade\\nalso moved for summary judgment on two grounds. First, it\\nargued that SportFuel failed to provide evidence that allowed\\na jury to find a likelihood of confusion—a necessary element\\nto each of SportFuel’s claims. Second, Gatorade argued that\\nthe Lanham Act protected its use of “Sports Fuel” as a fair use.\\n\\f4 No. 18‐3010\\n\\n\\n On June 14, 2018, the district court granted Gatorade’s mo‐\\ntion for summary judgment after finding that SportFuel failed\\nto produce evidence that demonstrated a factual dispute on\\nany of the three elements of Gatorade’s fair use defense. The\\ncourt also determined that because it found that Gatorade\\nsuccessfully raised the Act’s fair use defense, it need not con‐\\nduct a risk of confusion analysis for SportFuel’s claims. Simi‐\\nlarly, because the court determined that SportFuel’s claims\\nunder Illinois law were subject to the same analysis as its fed‐\\neral claims, it did not separately consider those claims. Sport‐\\nFuel appeals.\\n II. ANALYSIS\\n We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment\\nde novo, viewing all facts in SportFuel’s favor. Georgia‐Pac.\\nConsumer Prods. LP v. Kimberly‐Clark Corp., 647 F.3d 723, 727\\n(7th Cir. 2011). A district court may award summary judg‐\\nment when the evidence shows that “there is no genuine dis‐\\npute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judg‐\\nment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).\\n The Trademark Act of 1946, commonly known as the Lan‐\\nham Act, “federalized” the common law’s trademark protec‐\\ntions. CAE, Inc. v. Clean Air Eng’g, Inc., 267 F.3d 660, 672 (7th\\nCir. 2001). The Lanham Act allows those who employ trade or\\nservice marks to register them for exclusive use in commerce.\\nKP Permanent Make‐Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression I, Inc., 543\\nU.S. 111, 117 (2004). A trademark holder’s right becomes “in‐\\ncontestable” five years after initial registration with the PTO\\nif the holder meets certain conditions. Id.; 15 U.S.C. § 1065.\\n “The holder of a registered mark … has a civil action\\nagainst anyone employing an imitation of it in commerce\\n\\fNo. 18‐3010 5\\n\\n\\nwhen ‘such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mis‐\\ntake, or to deceive.’” KP Permanent Make‐Up, 543 U.S. at 117\\n(quoting 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)(a)). Additionally, the Act pro‐\\nvides trademark‐holders a cause of action against those who\\nmake a false designation of origin for a mark. 15\\nU.S.C. § 1125(a). “To prevail on either claim, a plaintiff must\\nestablish that (1) its mark is protectable and (2) the defend‐\\nant’s use of the mark is likely to cause confusion among con‐\\nsumers.” CAE, Inc., 267 F.3d at 673–74.\\n However, the Lanham Act provides several affirmative\\ndefenses to a plaintiff’s claims, including the “fair use” de‐\\nfense. See 15 U.S.C. § 1115(b). The fair use defense is available\\nagainst even incontestable trademarks, like SportFuel’s.\\nSorensen v. WD‐40 Co., 792 F.3d 712, 722 (7th Cir. 2015). The\\ndefense allows individuals to use otherwise trademarked lan‐\\nguage in a descriptive sense. See Packman v. Chi. Tribune Co.,\\n267 F.3d 628, 639 (7th Cir. 2001); Sunmark, Inc. v. Ocean Spray\\nCranberries, Inc., 64 F.3d 1055, 1058 (7th Cir. 1995). “[A] de‐\\nfendant in a trademark infringement action may invoke the\\nfair use defense by demonstrating that the alleged infringe‐\\nment, ‘is a use, otherwise than as a mark … which is descrip‐\\ntive of and used fairly and in good faith only to describe the\\ngoods or services of such party.’” Sorensen, 792 F.3d at 722\\n(quoting 15 U.S.C. § 1115(b)(4)). In short, to raise the fair use\\ndefense successfully, Gatorade must show that (1) it did not\\nuse “Sports Fuel” as a trademark, (2) the use is descriptive of\\nits goods, and (3) it used the mark fairly and in good faith.\\nSorensen, 792 F.3d at 722; Packman, 267 F.3d at 639. The district\\ncourt determined that Gatorade met all three prongs.\\n On appeal, SportFuel challenges the district court’s con‐\\nclusions on all three prongs of the fair use defense. We review\\n\\f6 No. 18‐3010\\n\\n\\neach prong in turn. However, because we conclude that Ga‐\\ntorade successfully raised a fair use defense against Sport‐\\nFuel’s claims, we do not consider whether Gatorade’s use of\\nthe slogan presented a risk of confusion to SportFuel’s mark.\\n A. Gatorade Did Not Use “Sports Fuel” As a Trademark.\\n SportFuel claims that the district court erred in finding\\nthat Gatorade did not use the term “Sports Fuel” as a trade‐\\nmark. SportFuel supports its argument with three factors: Ga‐\\ntorade uses the slogan as an “attention getting symbol,” it\\nplaced a trademark indication after the slogan, and it sought\\nto trademark the slogan.\\n Words or phrases function as trademarks “when [they are]\\nused by a source of a product to identify itself to the public as\\nthe source of its product and to create in the public conscious‐\\nness an awareness of the uniqueness of the source and of its\\nproducts.” Sorensen, 792 F.3d at 722–23 (quoting Sands, Taylor\\n& Wood Co. v. Quaker Oats Co., 978 F.2d 947, 953 (7th Cir.\\n1992)). Product packaging can include more than one source\\nindicator. Sorensen, 792 F.3d at 723. We look to multiple factors\\nin how a defendant employs a challenged term or phrase to\\ndetermine whether it serves as a source indicator and there‐\\nfore is used as a trademark. Our decision in Quaker Oats is\\nparticularly helpful to illustrate this point.\\n As here, Quaker Oats involved a suit over Gatorade’s use\\nof a slogan in an advertising campaign. 978 F.2d at 953–54.\\nThat campaign used the trademarked phrase “Thirst Aid” in\\n\\fNo. 18‐3010 7\\n\\n\\nthe slogan “Gatorade is THIRST AID.”1 Id. There, the district\\ncourt determined that although Gatorade used its house mark\\nin addition to the slogan, the term “Thirst Aid” also served as\\na source indicator. Id. at 953. The district court emphasized\\nthat Gatorade featured the term “Thirst Aid” prominently on\\nits product packaging—even more prominently than the Ga‐\\ntorade house mark. Gatorade appealed summary judgment in\\nthe plaintiff’s favor, arguing that it used the term “Thirst Aid”\\ndescriptively and not as a trademark. Id.\\n We affirmed and explained that although Gatorade used\\n“Thirst Aid” in tandem with its house mark, it used the term\\nas an “attention‐getting symbol.” Id. at 954. We observed that\\nthe “Gatorade is Thirst Aid” phrase employed a rhyming\\nplay‐on‐words and that Gatorade featured the slogan in\\nlarger, more noticeable font than the house mark. Id. We con‐\\nsequently determined that Gatorade’s use of the slogan\\nwould likely lead consumers to associate the terms “Thirst\\nAid” and “Gatorade,” and that such a use of “Thirst Aid” was\\nmeant to help consumers identify the source of the product.\\nId. These factors supported the district court’s conclusion that\\nGatorade used the phrase as a trademark. Id.\\n In this case, however, the record does not support the no‐\\ntion that Gatorade used the term “Sports Fuel” as a source in‐\\ndicator. Because visuals help considerably in trademark cases,\\nwe include the following photographs included in the parties’\\nbriefs of Gatorade’s use of the slogan:\\n\\n\\n\\n 1 Although the full slogan declared, “Gatorade is THIRST AID for\\nThat Deep Down Body Thirst,” Gatorade’s advertisements and the ensu‐\\ning litigation focused on the first portion. 978 F.2d at 950.\\n\\f8 No. 18‐3010\\n\\fNo. 18‐3010 9\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n As in Quaker Oats, here Gatorade used the term “Sports\\nFuel” in conjunction with its house mark. But the similarities\\nend there. The products’ individual packaging and displays\\nfeature Gatorade’s house mark and G Bolt logo more promi‐\\nnently. Gatorade rarely uses the term “Sports Fuel” directly\\non product packaging, except for where the company labeled\\na “Sports Fuel Drink” with the term. Instead, it primarily fea‐\\ntures the slogan on in‐store displays and other advertise‐\\nments—appearing almost as a subtitle to the house mark. Ad‐\\nditionally, the “Sports Fuel” slogan lacks the catchy, rhyming\\nplay‐on‐words at issue in Quaker Oats. Nothing about Ga‐\\ntorade’s use in this context suggests that consumers would\\nview “Sports Fuel” as a source indicator.\\n SportFuel emphasizes that Gatorade employed a “TM”\\nsymbol with the slogan and obtained a trademark for the slo‐\\ngan. But these facts fail to support SportFuel’s desired conclu‐\\nsion. The slogan notably included Gatorade’s trademark‐pro‐\\ntected house mark. Additionally, Gatorade specifically dis‐\\nclaimed exclusive use of the phrase “The Sports Fuel Com‐\\npany” in its trademark application for “Gatorade The Sports\\nFuel Company.” Sunmark, 64 F.3d at 1059 (noting that Ocean\\nSpray disclaimed exclusive use of a contested, descriptive\\nphrase). During the application process for Gatorade’s slogan,\\n\\f10 No. 18‐3010\\n\\n\\nthe PTO specifically advised Gatorade that it viewed the term\\n“Sports Fuel” as descriptive and therefore inappropriate for\\ntrademark use. And as the district court pointed out, Ga‐\\ntorade’s chief marketing officer stated in his deposition that\\nhe viewed the whole phrase—including the protected house\\nmark—as a trademark.\\n Thus, even construing the record in SportFuel’s favor on\\nsummary judgment, insufficient evidence supports Sport‐\\nFuel’s claim. Accordingly, we do not believe the district court\\nerred in determining that Gatorade never employed the term\\n“Sports Fuel” as a trademark in its “Gatorade The Sports Fuel\\nCompany” slogan.\\n B. Gatorade Used “Sports Fuel” Descriptively.\\n The district court also found that Gatorade used “Sports\\nFuel” descriptively, rather than suggestively, and therefore\\nnot as a trademark. SportFuel maintains that the district court\\nerred in this determination. We review the district court’s\\nclassification de novo. Quaker Oats, 978 F.2d at 952. “Inherent\\ndistinctiveness is a question of fact, and summary judgment\\nis appropriate only if, reading the record in [SportFuel’s] fa‐\\nvor, no reasonable factfinder could decide for it.” Uncommon,\\nLLC v. Spigen, Inc., 926 F.3d 409, 420 (7th Cir. 2019).\\n Trademark law awards trademark protection to various\\ncategories of words, terms, and phrases if consumers rely on\\nthose marks to identify and distinguish one company’s goods\\nor services from those of others. Platinum Home Mort. Corp. v.\\nPlatinum Fin. Grp., Inc., 149 F.3d 722, 727 (7th Cir. 1998).\\n“Marks are classified into five categories of increasing distinc‐\\ntiveness: (1) generic, (2) descriptive, (3) suggestive, (4) arbi‐\\ntrary, and (5) fanciful.” Id. Generally, trademark law does not\\n\\fNo. 18‐3010 11\\n\\n\\nallow sellers to register marks for terms that are generic or\\ndescriptive of products or services. Custom Vehicles, Inc. v. For‐\\nest River, Inc., 476 F.3d 481, 483 (7th Cir. 2007). We previously\\nexplained that this rule prevents sellers from branding their\\nproduct with a name or term that the public uses to identify\\nthe category of items. Id. An exception to this general rule is\\nthat “[d]escriptive terms … are protectable as a trademark if\\nthey have developed secondary meaning.” Sorensen, 792 F.3d\\nat 723. But a descriptive term only acquires a secondary mean‐\\ning after most consumers think of the term as the name of the\\nproduct instead of as descriptive of the product. Packman, 267\\nF.3d at 639.\\n Conversely, the law affords automatic protection to sug‐\\ngestive, arbitrary, and fanciful terms, which are inherently\\ndistinctive. Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763, 768\\n(1992); Platinum Home Mortg., 149 F.3d at 727. We recently\\nnoted that “[t]he line between descriptiveness and sugges‐\\ntiveness can be difficult to draw.” Uncommon, 926 F.3d at 421.\\n “A mark is descriptive when ‘it describes the product cat‐\\negory to which the brand belongs.’” Id. (quoting Custom Vehi‐\\ncles, 476 F.3d at 483. Descriptive phrases refer to a characteris‐\\ntic of the product. Quaker Oats, 978 F.2d at 953. But they need\\nnot be common phrases. Id.\\n Suggestive marks, on the other hand, do not “directly and\\nimmediately describe an aspect of the goods,” rather they “re‐\\nquire[] an observer or listener to use imagination and percep‐\\ntion to determine the nature of the goods.” Uncommon, 926\\nF.3d at 421 (quotations omitted). However, just because a\\nphrase is unfamiliar and “requires a hearer to think about its\\nmeaning” does not necessarily mean it is suggestive. Quaker\\nOats, 978 F.2d at 953. Courts look to a variety of factors to\\n\\f12 No. 18‐3010\\n\\n\\ndistinguish between descriptive and suggestive terminology,\\nbut we find two factors particularly helpful in this instance.2\\n“First, we can look to how, and how often, the relevant market\\nuses the word [or phrase] in question.” Uncommon, 926 F.3d\\nat 421. Second, we employ the “imagination test,” where we\\nask whether the word or phrase imparts information about\\nthe product or service directly or rather requires “some oper‐\\nation of the imagination to connect it with the goods.” Id. at\\n422 (quoting Platinum Home Mortg., 149 F.3d at 727). Both fac‐\\ntors lead us to characterize the slogan here as descriptive.\\n First, producers of nutritional products for athletes regu‐\\nlarly invoke the “Sports Fuel” terminology to describe the\\nproducts they sell. Gatorade provided numerous examples of\\nthis widespread industry use to the district court, including,\\nfor example, Twin Laboratories’ “SPORT FUEL” and Trident\\nSports’ “SPORTS FUEL.” Similarly, the PTO recognized this\\npoint when it processed Gatorade’s trademark application\\nstating, “[a]s SPORTS FUEL is commonly used in reference to\\nsports nutrition, consumers encountering the wording THE\\nSPORTS FUEL COMPANY in the proposed mark would\\nreadily understand it to mean that the goods are provided by\\na company that provides sports nutrition.” This widespread\\nindustry use, coupled with Gatorade’s disclaimer of exclusive\\nuse of “The Sports Fuel Company,” supports Gatorade’s ar‐\\ngument it used “Sports Fuel” descriptively.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 2\\n Courts also occasionally find dictionary definitions and third‐party\\npatent registrations probative of whether a term or phrase is descriptive.\\nSee Uncommon, 926 F.3d at 422‐23.\\n\\fNo. 18‐3010 13\\n\\n\\n Second, SportFuel argues that Gatorade’s use of “Sports\\nFuel” is suggestive—and not descriptive—of Gatorade’s\\nproducts because the term requires a mental leap to deduce\\nthat the company is really selling athletic nutrition products.\\nTo support this notion, SportFuel also points out that Ga‐\\ntorade’s consumers, by and large, are not high‐performance\\nathletes. We find these arguments unpersuasive. The use of\\n“Sports Fuel” in “Gatorade The Sports Fuel Company” clearly\\ndescribes the category of goods that Gatorade produces. It re‐\\nquires no imaginative leap to understand that a company sell‐\\ning “Sports Fuel” is selling a variety of food products de‐\\nsigned for athletes. That non‐athletes regularly consume Ga‐\\ntorade’s products has no bearing whether the term is descrip‐\\ntive. Just as the pervasive use of yoga pants and other active‐\\nwear as casual clothing does not change the athletic charac‐\\nteristics of those products, the fact that Gatorade sells more\\nsports drinks to average joes who limit their rigorous exercise\\nto lawn mowing does not change the athletic characteristics\\nof Gatorade’s products.\\n We conclude that Gatorade’s slogan uses “Sports Fuel” in\\na descriptive sense.\\n C. Gatorade Uses “Sports Fuel” Fairly and in Good Faith.\\n A party raising a fair use defense “must show that it used\\nthe plaintiff’s mark fairly and in good faith.” Sorensen, 792\\nF.3d at 725. Courts determine defendants’ good faith by look‐\\ning to their subjective purpose in using a slogan. Packman, 267\\nF.3d at 642. As an initial matter, we note that although the dis‐\\ntrict court’s analysis implicitly confirmed that Gatorade used\\n“Sport Fuel” in good faith, it never stated its conclusion ex‐\\nplicitly. Nonetheless, as we explain, we believe Gatorade pro‐\\nduced sufficient evidence to show that it descriptively used\\n\\f14 No. 18‐3010\\n\\n\\nthe term “Sports Fuel” in its slogan fairly and in good faith.\\nSportFuel insisted during summary judgment that the evi‐\\ndence, construed in its favor, demonstrated that Gatorade\\nacted unfairly and in bad faith by using its slogan. But the dis‐\\ntrict court rejected SportFuel’s argument and explained why\\nSportFuel failed to show that Gatorade acted in bad faith.\\n On appeal, SportFuel challenges the district court’s con‐\\nclusion for three reasons. First, SportFuel claims that evidence\\nproduced during discovery justified inferring bad faith on\\nGatorade’s part. Second, the district court purportedly erred\\nin concluding that Gatorade used “Sports Fuel” fairly given\\nthe risk that reverse confusion posed to SportFuel. Third, Ga‐\\ntorade uses “Sports Fuel” in a trademark manner, beyond de‐\\nscribing its goods or services.\\n 1. SportFuel Provides Insufficient Evidence of Gatorade’s Bad\\n Faith.\\n SportFuel alleges that the district court erred because it\\nnever properly considered evidence of Gatorade’s bad faith.\\nIt provides four main examples to support this argument.\\nFirst, it argues that Gatorade was aware of SportFuel’s mark\\nby virtue of Gatorade’s previous working relationship with\\nJulie Burns. Second, it suggests that Gatorade’s continued use\\nof “Sports Fuel” after SportFuel filed suit betrays its bad faith.\\nThird, SportFuel points to a dearth of evidence concerning\\nGatorade’s adoption of its new slogan. Fourth, SportFuel al‐\\nludes to a falling out between Gatorade and Burns, suggesting\\nthat Gatorade adopted the new slogan to settle an old score.\\n SportFuel alleges that Gatorade’s bad faith is demon‐\\nstrated by the fact that it began to use “Sports Fuel” even\\nthough it knew of SportFuel’s mark. But the defendant’s\\n\\fNo. 18‐3010 15\\n\\n\\n“mere knowledge” of the plaintiff’s mark, without other evi‐\\ndence of subjective bad faith, is insufficient. Sorensen, 792 F.3d\\nat 725. Accordingly, “[t]o survive summary judgment, a\\nplaintiff must point to something more that suggests subjec‐\\ntive bad faith.” Id. Therefore, without other, substantial evi‐\\ndence, this factor provides no support for the claim that Ga‐\\ntorade used “Sports Fuel” in bad faith.\\n SportFuel also points to Gatorade’s continued use of\\n“Sports Fuel,” even after SportFuel filed this suit. But “it is\\nlawful to use a mark that does not infringe some other; inten‐\\ntional infringement creates problems, but [a defendant’s] in‐\\ntentional use of a mark that [it] had every right to use is not\\nitself a ground on which to draw an adverse inference.” M‐F‐\\nG Corp. v. EMRA Corp., 817 F.2d 410, 412 (7th Cir. 1987). Ga‐\\ntorade believed it had every right to use “Sports Fuel” in a\\ndescriptive sense, so its continued use after SportFuel filed\\nsuit also fails to justify an inference of bad faith.\\n Third, SportFuel suggests that Gatorade failed to produce\\nevidence in discovery that must have existed. Specifically, Ga‐\\ntorade’s production included no documentation related to its\\napproval of the slogan “Gatorade The Sports Fuel Company.”\\nSportFuel argues that a company as large as Gatorade cer‐\\ntainly required high‐level approval before adopting a nation‐\\nwide rebranding campaign. And presumably Gatorade\\nwould possess documentation of that approval. Yet, “[s]pecu‐\\nlation will not suffice” to defeat summary judgment. Borcky v.\\nMaytag Corp., 248 F.3d 691, 695 (7th Cir. 2001); Amadio v. Ford\\nMotor Co., 238 F.3d 919, 927 (7th Cir. 2001) (“It is well‐settled\\nthat speculation may not be used to manufacture a genuine\\nissue of fact.”); Gorbitz v. Corvilla, Inc., 196 F.3d 879, 882 (7th\\nCir.1999). SportFuel’s argument relies on the assumption that\\n\\f16 No. 18‐3010\\n\\n\\nsomething must have existed. But the time to pursue this idea\\nwas during discovery. SportFuel did not, and it cannot now\\navoid summary judgment with assumption or speculation.\\nThe record neither provides evidence to support the claim\\nthat Gatorade adopted the slogan in bad faith, nor indicates\\nthat Gatorade purposefully failed to produce such evidence.\\n Fourth, SportFuel suggests that Gatorade’s adoption of\\nthe slogan relates to a falling out between Burns and Ga‐\\ntorade. The problem with this claim—much like the last argu‐\\nment—is that SportFuel provides no relevant evidence as sup‐\\nport. It relies on Burns’s deposition testimony, where she\\nstated that her relationship with Gatorade ended after she re‐\\nfused to endorse one of Gatorade’s new sugary sports bar\\nproducts. However, Burns’s relationship with Gatorade\\nended more than a decade before the alleged infringement be‐\\ngan. And the idea that a new slogan for a nation‐wide re‐\\nbranding campaign and stale antipathy towards Burns are\\nconnected is facially incredible when otherwise unsupported\\nby the record.\\n We accordingly find none of these factors significant\\nenough—individually or in the aggregate—to create an infer‐\\nence of Gatorade’s bad faith.\\n 2. The Risk of Reverse Confusion Does Not Demonstrate Ga‐\\n torade’s Bad Faith.\\n Second, SportFuel claims that the district court conducted\\nan insufficient analysis of Gatorade’s intent in using “Sports\\nFuel” because its alleged infringement creates reverse confu‐\\nsion. “Reverse confusion occurs when a large junior user sat‐\\nurates the market with a trademark similar or identical to that\\nof a smaller, senior user. In such a case, the junior user does\\n\\fNo. 18‐3010 17\\n\\n\\nnot seek to profit from the good will associated with the sen‐\\nior user’s mark.” Quaker Oats, 978 F.2d at 957. We previously\\nexplained that reverse confusion nonetheless harms the sen‐\\nior user because “[t]he public comes to assume that the senior\\nuser’s products are really the junior user’s or that the former\\nhas become somehow connected to the latter.” Id. (quoting\\nAmeritech, Inc. v. Am. Info. Tech. Corp., 811 F.2d 960, 964 (6th\\nCir. 1987)). As a result, “the senior user loses the value of the\\ntrademark—its product identity, corporate identity, control\\nover its goodwill and reputation, and ability to move into new\\nmarkets.” Id. In this case, the alleged reverse confusion would\\noccur when Gatorade used its house mark alongside the term\\n“Sports Fuel,” which would effectively coopt SportFuel’s\\ntrademark and confuse consumers by leading them to believe\\nthe companies were related.\\n We cannot agree that the district court erred because it de‐\\nclined to examine Gatorade’s intent in using “Sports Fuel.” In\\nQuaker Oats, we explained that intent is largely irrelevant in\\nreverse confusion cases because “the defendant by definition\\nis not palming off or otherwise attempting to create confusion\\nas to the source of his product.” Id. at 961 (emphasis in origi‐\\nnal); but see Marketquest Grp., Inc. v. BIC Corp., 862 F.3d 927,\\n937 (9th Cir. 2017) (applying the Ninth Circuit’s test that ana‐\\nlyzes intent).\\n But even if it were appropriate to examine Gatorade’s in‐\\ntent in using “Sports Fuel” in its slogan, SportFuel’s argument\\nwould fail. Gatorade provided evidence showing that it\\nadopted the slogan to reflect its various types of sports fuel\\nproducts. At the same time, SportFuel neither provides nor\\nidentifies substantive evidence to support the notion that Ga‐\\ntorade adopted its slogan in any spirit other than good faith.\\n\\f18 No. 18‐3010\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 3. Gatorade Uses “Sports Fuel” Descriptively.\\n SportFuel lastly urges that Gatorade views the slogan as a\\ntrademark and therefore used “Sports Fuel” unfairly and in\\nbad faith. As mentioned above, SportFuel supports this argu‐\\nment by pointing out that Gatorade adorns its slogan with a\\n“TM.” SportFuel also relies on testimony by Gatorade’s chief\\nmarketing officer, in which he stated that he viewed the entire\\nslogan, “Gatorade The Sports Fuel Company” as a trademark.\\nFor the reasons mentioned earlier in this opinion, we believe\\nGatorade employed the term “Sports Fuel” descriptively and\\nnot as a trademark. We therefore do not accept that Gatorade\\nused the slogan unfairly or in bad faith.\\n Further, it is clear from the record that Gatorade provided\\nsufficient evidence that it used the term “Sports Fuel” fairly\\nand in good faith. Gatorade’s stated purpose in adopting the\\nchallenged slogan was to help the company better describe its\\nbusiness and the products it sells. Nothing in the record actu‐\\nally contradicts this purpose. Gatorade produced evidence\\ndemonstrating that the company and its employees view\\nthemselves as producers of sports fuels. Moreover, Gatorade\\nboth specifically disclaimed exclusive use of the phrase “The\\nSports Fuel Company” and prominently used its house mark\\nand G Bolt logo in a manner distinct from the slogan.\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district\\ncourt is AFFIRMED.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4422630/\", \"author_raw\": \"Michael Stephen Kanne\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"KANNE"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"BARRETT"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"BRENNAN"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645377/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":8,"string":"8"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: SPORTFUEL, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PEPSICO, INC. and the Gatorade Company, Defendants-Appellees.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-08-02\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18‐3010\nSPORTFUEL, INC.,\n Plaintiff‐Appellant,\n v.\n\nPEPSICO, INC. and\nTHE GATORADE COMPANY,\n Defendants‐Appellees.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\n No. 16‐cv‐7868 — Matthew F. Kennelly, Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED APRIL 9, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 2, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before KANNE, BARRETT, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\n KANNE, Circuit Judge. SportFuel appeals the district court’s\ngrant of summary judgment for Gatorade and its parent com‐\npany, PepsiCo. SportFuel brought this suit against Gatorade\nalleging violations of its trademark after Gatorade rebranded\nitself with the slogan, “Gatorade The Sports Fuel Company.”\nThe district court deemed Gatorade’s slogan a fair use pro‐\ntected by the Lanham Act. We affirm.\n\f2 No. 18‐3010\n\n\n I. BACKGROUND\n SportFuel is a Chicago‐based sports nutrition and well‐\nness consulting firm whose clients include several of Chi‐\ncago’s prominent professional sports teams and their athletes.\nThe company provides personalized nutrition consulting ser‐\nvices to professional and amateur athletes, but also sells\nSportFuel‐branded dietary supplements. SportFuel holds two\nregistered trademarks for “SportFuel.” It registered the first\nfor “food nutrition consultation, nutrition counseling, and\nproviding information about dietary supplements and nutri‐\ntion.” After several years of use, SportFuel’s trademark be‐\ncame “incontestable” in 2013 under 15 U.S.C. § 1065. Sport‐\nFuel also registered a trademark in 2015 for “goods and ser‐\nvices related to dietary supplements and sports drinks en‐\nhanced with vitamins.”\n Gatorade was created in 1965 at the University of Florida\nCollege of Medicine and public sales began several years later.\nUndoubtedly, Gatorade is more widely known. It is the offi‐\ncial sports drink of the NBA, PGA, MLB, MLS, and many\nother professional and collegiate organizations. Whether by\ntelevision imagery of victorious athletes drenching their\ncoaches or teammates with a Gatorade shower from a distinc‐\ntive cooler, or through aggressive national media marketing\ncampaigns, Gatorade became a household name.\n In addition to its traditional sports drinks, Gatorade now\ncustomizes its sports drink line by selling formulas that are\ntailored to the nutritional needs of individual professional\nathletes. The company also sells numerous other sports nutri‐\ntion products beyond sports drinks. It began to publicly de‐\nscribe its products as sports fuels in 2013. Seeking to broaden\nits public image to reflect its expanded variety of products,\n\fNo. 18‐3010 3\n\n\nGatorade began a rebranding effort. In 2016 it registered the\ntrademark “Gatorade The Sports Fuel Company” with the\nUnited States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”). Notably,\nGatorade disclaimed the exclusive use of “The Sports Fuel\nCompany” after the PTO advised the company that the\nphrase was merely descriptive of its products.\n The only link between SportFuel and Gatorade is a nutri‐\ntionist and dietician named Julie Burns, who founded Sport‐\nFuel in 1993. Burns had a history of working with Gatorade:\nshe served as a nutritionist on the Gatorade Sports Science In‐\nstitute’s Sports Nutrition Advisory Board from 1995 until\n2003. Burns became aware of Gatorade’s rebranding efforts\nand the alleged trademark infringement when she saw a Ga‐\ntorade commercial featuring the new slogan. SportFuel filed\nsuit against Gatorade and PepsiCo in August 2016. Its com‐\nplaint alleged trademark infringement (15 U.S.C. § 1051), un‐\nfair competition, and false designation of origin in violation\nof the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)). Similarly, SportFuel\nasserted claims of trademark infringement and unfair compe‐\ntition in violation of Illinois law. See 815 Ill. Comp. Stat.\n§§ 505/1, 510/1. Gatorade raised counterclaims for a cancella‐\ntion of SportFuel’s trademark.\n Gatorade moved to exclude SportFuel’s expert’s testi‐\nmony and survey evidence concerning the likelihood of con‐\nsumer confusion from Gatorade’s use of the slogan. Gatorade\nalso moved for summary judgment on two grounds. First, it\nargued that SportFuel failed to provide evidence that allowed\na jury to find a likelihood of confusion—a necessary element\nto each of SportFuel’s claims. Second, Gatorade argued that\nthe Lanham Act protected its use of “Sports Fuel” as a fair use.\n\f4 No. 18‐3010\n\n\n On June 14, 2018, the district court granted Gatorade’s mo‐\ntion for summary judgment after finding that SportFuel failed\nto produce evidence that demonstrated a factual dispute on\nany of the three elements of Gatorade’s fair use defense. The\ncourt also determined that because it found that Gatorade\nsuccessfully raised the Act’s fair use defense, it need not con‐\nduct a risk of confusion analysis for SportFuel’s claims. Simi‐\nlarly, because the court determined that SportFuel’s claims\nunder Illinois law were subject to the same analysis as its fed‐\neral claims, it did not separately consider those claims. Sport‐\nFuel appeals.\n II. ANALYSIS\n We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment\nde novo, viewing all facts in SportFuel’s favor. Georgia‐Pac.\nConsumer Prods. LP v. Kimberly‐Clark Corp., 647 F.3d 723, 727\n(7th Cir. 2011). A district court may award summary judg‐\nment when the evidence shows that “there is no genuine dis‐\npute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judg‐\nment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).\n The Trademark Act of 1946, commonly known as the Lan‐\nham Act, “federalized” the common law’s trademark protec‐\ntions. CAE, Inc. v. Clean Air Eng’g, Inc., 267 F.3d 660, 672 (7th\nCir. 2001). The Lanham Act allows those who employ trade or\nservice marks to register them for exclusive use in commerce.\nKP Permanent Make‐Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression I, Inc., 543\nU.S. 111, 117 (2004). A trademark holder’s right becomes “in‐\ncontestable” five years after initial registration with the PTO\nif the holder meets certain conditions. Id.; 15 U.S.C. § 1065.\n “The holder of a registered mark … has a civil action\nagainst anyone employing an imitation of it in commerce\n\fNo. 18‐3010 5\n\n\nwhen ‘such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mis‐\ntake, or to deceive.’” KP Permanent Make‐Up, 543 U.S. at 117\n(quoting 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)(a)). Additionally, the Act pro‐\nvides trademark‐holders a cause of action against those who\nmake a false designation of origin for a mark. 15\nU.S.C. § 1125(a). “To prevail on either claim, a plaintiff must\nestablish that (1) its mark is protectable and (2) the defend‐\nant’s use of the mark is likely to cause confusion among con‐\nsumers.” CAE, Inc., 267 F.3d at 673–74.\n However, the Lanham Act provides several affirmative\ndefenses to a plaintiff’s claims, including the “fair use” de‐\nfense. See 15 U.S.C. § 1115(b). The fair use defense is available\nagainst even incontestable trademarks, like SportFuel’s.\nSorensen v. WD‐40 Co., 792 F.3d 712, 722 (7th Cir. 2015). The\ndefense allows individuals to use otherwise trademarked lan‐\nguage in a descriptive sense. See Packman v. Chi. Tribune Co.,\n267 F.3d 628, 639 (7th Cir. 2001); Sunmark, Inc. v. Ocean Spray\nCranberries, Inc., 64 F.3d 1055, 1058 (7th Cir. 1995). “[A] de‐\nfendant in a trademark infringement action may invoke the\nfair use defense by demonstrating that the alleged infringe‐\nment, ‘is a use, otherwise than as a mark … which is descrip‐\ntive of and used fairly and in good faith only to describe the\ngoods or services of such party.’” Sorensen, 792 F.3d at 722\n(quoting 15 U.S.C. § 1115(b)(4)). In short, to raise the fair use\ndefense successfully, Gatorade must show that (1) it did not\nuse “Sports Fuel” as a trademark, (2) the use is descriptive of\nits goods, and (3) it used the mark fairly and in good faith.\nSorensen, 792 F.3d at 722; Packman, 267 F.3d at 639. The district\ncourt determined that Gatorade met all three prongs.\n On appeal, SportFuel challenges the district court’s con‐\nclusions on all three prongs of the fair use defense. We review\n\f6 No. 18‐3010\n\n\neach prong in turn. However, because we conclude that Ga‐\ntorade successfully raised a fair use defense against Sport‐\nFuel’s claims, we do not consider whether Gatorade’s use of\nthe slogan presented a risk of confusion to SportFuel’s mark.\n A. Gatorade Did Not Use “Sports Fuel” As a Trademark.\n SportFuel claims that the district court erred in finding\nthat Gatorade did not use the term “Sports Fuel” as a trade‐\nmark. SportFuel supports its argument with three factors: Ga‐\ntorade uses the slogan as an “attention getting symbol,” it\nplaced a trademark indication after the slogan, and it sought\nto trademark the slogan.\n Words or phrases function as trademarks “when [they are]\nused by a source of a product to identify itself to the public as\nthe source of its product and to create in the public conscious‐\nness an awareness of the uniqueness of the source and of its\nproducts.” Sorensen, 792 F.3d at 722–23 (quoting Sands, Taylor\n& Wood Co. v. Quaker Oats Co., 978 F.2d 947, 953 (7th Cir.\n1992)). Product packaging can include more than one source\nindicator. Sorensen, 792 F.3d at 723. We look to multiple factors\nin how a defendant employs a challenged term or phrase to\ndetermine whether it serves as a source indicator and there‐\nfore is used as a trademark. Our decision in Quaker Oats is\nparticularly helpful to illustrate this point.\n As here, Quaker Oats involved a suit over Gatorade’s use\nof a slogan in an advertising campaign. 978 F.2d at 953–54.\nThat campaign used the trademarked phrase “Thirst Aid” in\n\fNo. 18‐3010 7\n\n\nthe slogan “Gatorade is THIRST AID.”1 Id. There, the district\ncourt determined that although Gatorade used its house mark\nin addition to the slogan, the term “Thirst Aid” also served as\na source indicator. Id. at 953. The district court emphasized\nthat Gatorade featured the term “Thirst Aid” prominently on\nits product packaging—even more prominently than the Ga‐\ntorade house mark. Gatorade appealed summary judgment in\nthe plaintiff’s favor, arguing that it used the term “Thirst Aid”\ndescriptively and not as a trademark. Id.\n We affirmed and explained that although Gatorade used\n“Thirst Aid” in tandem with its house mark, it used the term\nas an “attention‐getting symbol.” Id. at 954. We observed that\nthe “Gatorade is Thirst Aid” phrase employed a rhyming\nplay‐on‐words and that Gatorade featured the slogan in\nlarger, more noticeable font than the house mark. Id. We con‐\nsequently determined that Gatorade’s use of the slogan\nwould likely lead consumers to associate the terms “Thirst\nAid” and “Gatorade,” and that such a use of “Thirst Aid” was\nmeant to help consumers identify the source of the product.\nId. These factors supported the district court’s conclusion that\nGatorade used the phrase as a trademark. Id.\n In this case, however, the record does not support the no‐\ntion that Gatorade used the term “Sports Fuel” as a source in‐\ndicator. Because visuals help considerably in trademark cases,\nwe include the following photographs included in the parties’\nbriefs of Gatorade’s use of the slogan:\n\n\n\n 1 Although the full slogan declared, “Gatorade is THIRST AID for\nThat Deep Down Body Thirst,” Gatorade’s advertisements and the ensu‐\ning litigation focused on the first portion. 978 F.2d at 950.\n\f8 No. 18‐3010\n\fNo. 18‐3010 9\n\n\n\n\n As in Quaker Oats, here Gatorade used the term “Sports\nFuel” in conjunction with its house mark. But the similarities\nend there. The products’ individual packaging and displays\nfeature Gatorade’s house mark and G Bolt logo more promi‐\nnently. Gatorade rarely uses the term “Sports Fuel” directly\non product packaging, except for where the company labeled\na “Sports Fuel Drink” with the term. Instead, it primarily fea‐\ntures the slogan on in‐store displays and other advertise‐\nments—appearing almost as a subtitle to the house mark. Ad‐\nditionally, the “Sports Fuel” slogan lacks the catchy, rhyming\nplay‐on‐words at issue in Quaker Oats. Nothing about Ga‐\ntorade’s use in this context suggests that consumers would\nview “Sports Fuel” as a source indicator.\n SportFuel emphasizes that Gatorade employed a “TM”\nsymbol with the slogan and obtained a trademark for the slo‐\ngan. But these facts fail to support SportFuel’s desired conclu‐\nsion. The slogan notably included Gatorade’s trademark‐pro‐\ntected house mark. Additionally, Gatorade specifically dis‐\nclaimed exclusive use of the phrase “The Sports Fuel Com‐\npany” in its trademark application for “Gatorade The Sports\nFuel Company.” Sunmark, 64 F.3d at 1059 (noting that Ocean\nSpray disclaimed exclusive use of a contested, descriptive\nphrase). During the application process for Gatorade’s slogan,\n\f10 No. 18‐3010\n\n\nthe PTO specifically advised Gatorade that it viewed the term\n“Sports Fuel” as descriptive and therefore inappropriate for\ntrademark use. And as the district court pointed out, Ga‐\ntorade’s chief marketing officer stated in his deposition that\nhe viewed the whole phrase—including the protected house\nmark—as a trademark.\n Thus, even construing the record in SportFuel’s favor on\nsummary judgment, insufficient evidence supports Sport‐\nFuel’s claim. Accordingly, we do not believe the district court\nerred in determining that Gatorade never employed the term\n“Sports Fuel” as a trademark in its “Gatorade The Sports Fuel\nCompany” slogan.\n B. Gatorade Used “Sports Fuel” Descriptively.\n The district court also found that Gatorade used “Sports\nFuel” descriptively, rather than suggestively, and therefore\nnot as a trademark. SportFuel maintains that the district court\nerred in this determination. We review the district court’s\nclassification de novo. Quaker Oats, 978 F.2d at 952. “Inherent\ndistinctiveness is a question of fact, and summary judgment\nis appropriate only if, reading the record in [SportFuel’s] fa‐\nvor, no reasonable factfinder could decide for it.” Uncommon,\nLLC v. Spigen, Inc., 926 F.3d 409, 420 (7th Cir. 2019).\n Trademark law awards trademark protection to various\ncategories of words, terms, and phrases if consumers rely on\nthose marks to identify and distinguish one company’s goods\nor services from those of others. Platinum Home Mort. Corp. v.\nPlatinum Fin. Grp., Inc., 149 F.3d 722, 727 (7th Cir. 1998).\n“Marks are classified into five categories of increasing distinc‐\ntiveness: (1) generic, (2) descriptive, (3) suggestive, (4) arbi‐\ntrary, and (5) fanciful.” Id. Generally, trademark law does not\n\fNo. 18‐3010 11\n\n\nallow sellers to register marks for terms that are generic or\ndescriptive of products or services. Custom Vehicles, Inc. v. For‐\nest River, Inc., 476 F.3d 481, 483 (7th Cir. 2007). We previously\nexplained that this rule prevents sellers from branding their\nproduct with a name or term that the public uses to identify\nthe category of items. Id. An exception to this general rule is\nthat “[d]escriptive terms … are protectable as a trademark if\nthey have developed secondary meaning.” Sorensen, 792 F.3d\nat 723. But a descriptive term only acquires a secondary mean‐\ning after most consumers think of the term as the name of the\nproduct instead of as descriptive of the product. Packman, 267\nF.3d at 639.\n Conversely, the law affords automatic protection to sug‐\ngestive, arbitrary, and fanciful terms, which are inherently\ndistinctive. Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763, 768\n(1992); Platinum Home Mortg., 149 F.3d at 727. We recently\nnoted that “[t]he line between descriptiveness and sugges‐\ntiveness can be difficult to draw.” Uncommon, 926 F.3d at 421.\n “A mark is descriptive when ‘it describes the product cat‐\negory to which the brand belongs.’” Id. (quoting Custom Vehi‐\ncles, 476 F.3d at 483. Descriptive phrases refer to a characteris‐\ntic of the product. Quaker Oats, 978 F.2d at 953. But they need\nnot be common phrases. Id.\n Suggestive marks, on the other hand, do not “directly and\nimmediately describe an aspect of the goods,” rather they “re‐\nquire[] an observer or listener to use imagination and percep‐\ntion to determine the nature of the goods.” Uncommon, 926\nF.3d at 421 (quotations omitted). However, just because a\nphrase is unfamiliar and “requires a hearer to think about its\nmeaning” does not necessarily mean it is suggestive. Quaker\nOats, 978 F.2d at 953. Courts look to a variety of factors to\n\f12 No. 18‐3010\n\n\ndistinguish between descriptive and suggestive terminology,\nbut we find two factors particularly helpful in this instance.2\n“First, we can look to how, and how often, the relevant market\nuses the word [or phrase] in question.” Uncommon, 926 F.3d\nat 421. Second, we employ the “imagination test,” where we\nask whether the word or phrase imparts information about\nthe product or service directly or rather requires “some oper‐\nation of the imagination to connect it with the goods.” Id. at\n422 (quoting Platinum Home Mortg., 149 F.3d at 727). Both fac‐\ntors lead us to characterize the slogan here as descriptive.\n First, producers of nutritional products for athletes regu‐\nlarly invoke the “Sports Fuel” terminology to describe the\nproducts they sell. Gatorade provided numerous examples of\nthis widespread industry use to the district court, including,\nfor example, Twin Laboratories’ “SPORT FUEL” and Trident\nSports’ “SPORTS FUEL.” Similarly, the PTO recognized this\npoint when it processed Gatorade’s trademark application\nstating, “[a]s SPORTS FUEL is commonly used in reference to\nsports nutrition, consumers encountering the wording THE\nSPORTS FUEL COMPANY in the proposed mark would\nreadily understand it to mean that the goods are provided by\na company that provides sports nutrition.” This widespread\nindustry use, coupled with Gatorade’s disclaimer of exclusive\nuse of “The Sports Fuel Company,” supports Gatorade’s ar‐\ngument it used “Sports Fuel” descriptively.\n\n\n\n\n 2\n Courts also occasionally find dictionary definitions and third‐party\npatent registrations probative of whether a term or phrase is descriptive.\nSee Uncommon, 926 F.3d at 422‐23.\n\fNo. 18‐3010 13\n\n\n Second, SportFuel argues that Gatorade’s use of “Sports\nFuel” is suggestive—and not descriptive—of Gatorade’s\nproducts because the term requires a mental leap to deduce\nthat the company is really selling athletic nutrition products.\nTo support this notion, SportFuel also points out that Ga‐\ntorade’s consumers, by and large, are not high‐performance\nathletes. We find these arguments unpersuasive. The use of\n“Sports Fuel” in “Gatorade The Sports Fuel Company” clearly\ndescribes the category of goods that Gatorade produces. It re‐\nquires no imaginative leap to understand that a company sell‐\ning “Sports Fuel” is selling a variety of food products de‐\nsigned for athletes. That non‐athletes regularly consume Ga‐\ntorade’s products has no bearing whether the term is descrip‐\ntive. Just as the pervasive use of yoga pants and other active‐\nwear as casual clothing does not change the athletic charac‐\nteristics of those products, the fact that Gatorade sells more\nsports drinks to average joes who limit their rigorous exercise\nto lawn mowing does not change the athletic characteristics\nof Gatorade’s products.\n We conclude that Gatorade’s slogan uses “Sports Fuel” in\na descriptive sense.\n C. Gatorade Uses “Sports Fuel” Fairly and in Good Faith.\n A party raising a fair use defense “must show that it used\nthe plaintiff’s mark fairly and in good faith.” Sorensen, 792\nF.3d at 725. Courts determine defendants’ good faith by look‐\ning to their subjective purpose in using a slogan. Packman, 267\nF.3d at 642. As an initial matter, we note that although the dis‐\ntrict court’s analysis implicitly confirmed that Gatorade used\n“Sport Fuel” in good faith, it never stated its conclusion ex‐\nplicitly. Nonetheless, as we explain, we believe Gatorade pro‐\nduced sufficient evidence to show that it descriptively used\n\f14 No. 18‐3010\n\n\nthe term “Sports Fuel” in its slogan fairly and in good faith.\nSportFuel insisted during summary judgment that the evi‐\ndence, construed in its favor, demonstrated that Gatorade\nacted unfairly and in bad faith by using its slogan. But the dis‐\ntrict court rejected SportFuel’s argument and explained why\nSportFuel failed to show that Gatorade acted in bad faith.\n On appeal, SportFuel challenges the district court’s con‐\nclusion for three reasons. First, SportFuel claims that evidence\nproduced during discovery justified inferring bad faith on\nGatorade’s part. Second, the district court purportedly erred\nin concluding that Gatorade used “Sports Fuel” fairly given\nthe risk that reverse confusion posed to SportFuel. Third, Ga‐\ntorade uses “Sports Fuel” in a trademark manner, beyond de‐\nscribing its goods or services.\n 1. SportFuel Provides Insufficient Evidence of Gatorade’s Bad\n Faith.\n SportFuel alleges that the district court erred because it\nnever properly considered evidence of Gatorade’s bad faith.\nIt provides four main examples to support this argument.\nFirst, it argues that Gatorade was aware of SportFuel’s mark\nby virtue of Gatorade’s previous working relationship with\nJulie Burns. Second, it suggests that Gatorade’s continued use\nof “Sports Fuel” after SportFuel filed suit betrays its bad faith.\nThird, SportFuel points to a dearth of evidence concerning\nGatorade’s adoption of its new slogan. Fourth, SportFuel al‐\nludes to a falling out between Gatorade and Burns, suggesting\nthat Gatorade adopted the new slogan to settle an old score.\n SportFuel alleges that Gatorade’s bad faith is demon‐\nstrated by the fact that it began to use “Sports Fuel” even\nthough it knew of SportFuel’s mark. But the defendant’s\n\fNo. 18‐3010 15\n\n\n“mere knowledge” of the plaintiff’s mark, without other evi‐\ndence of subjective bad faith, is insufficient. Sorensen, 792 F.3d\nat 725. Accordingly, “[t]o survive summary judgment, a\nplaintiff must point to something more that suggests subjec‐\ntive bad faith.” Id. Therefore, without other, substantial evi‐\ndence, this factor provides no support for the claim that Ga‐\ntorade used “Sports Fuel” in bad faith.\n SportFuel also points to Gatorade’s continued use of\n“Sports Fuel,” even after SportFuel filed this suit. But “it is\nlawful to use a mark that does not infringe some other; inten‐\ntional infringement creates problems, but [a defendant’s] in‐\ntentional use of a mark that [it] had every right to use is not\nitself a ground on which to draw an adverse inference.” M‐F‐\nG Corp. v. EMRA Corp., 817 F.2d 410, 412 (7th Cir. 1987). Ga‐\ntorade believed it had every right to use “Sports Fuel” in a\ndescriptive sense, so its continued use after SportFuel filed\nsuit also fails to justify an inference of bad faith.\n Third, SportFuel suggests that Gatorade failed to produce\nevidence in discovery that must have existed. Specifically, Ga‐\ntorade’s production included no documentation related to its\napproval of the slogan “Gatorade The Sports Fuel Company.”\nSportFuel argues that a company as large as Gatorade cer‐\ntainly required high‐level approval before adopting a nation‐\nwide rebranding campaign. And presumably Gatorade\nwould possess documentation of that approval. Yet, “[s]pecu‐\nlation will not suffice” to defeat summary judgment. Borcky v.\nMaytag Corp., 248 F.3d 691, 695 (7th Cir. 2001); Amadio v. Ford\nMotor Co., 238 F.3d 919, 927 (7th Cir. 2001) (“It is well‐settled\nthat speculation may not be used to manufacture a genuine\nissue of fact.”); Gorbitz v. Corvilla, Inc., 196 F.3d 879, 882 (7th\nCir.1999). SportFuel’s argument relies on the assumption that\n\f16 No. 18‐3010\n\n\nsomething must have existed. But the time to pursue this idea\nwas during discovery. SportFuel did not, and it cannot now\navoid summary judgment with assumption or speculation.\nThe record neither provides evidence to support the claim\nthat Gatorade adopted the slogan in bad faith, nor indicates\nthat Gatorade purposefully failed to produce such evidence.\n Fourth, SportFuel suggests that Gatorade’s adoption of\nthe slogan relates to a falling out between Burns and Ga‐\ntorade. The problem with this claim—much like the last argu‐\nment—is that SportFuel provides no relevant evidence as sup‐\nport. It relies on Burns’s deposition testimony, where she\nstated that her relationship with Gatorade ended after she re‐\nfused to endorse one of Gatorade’s new sugary sports bar\nproducts. However, Burns’s relationship with Gatorade\nended more than a decade before the alleged infringement be‐\ngan. And the idea that a new slogan for a nation‐wide re‐\nbranding campaign and stale antipathy towards Burns are\nconnected is facially incredible when otherwise unsupported\nby the record.\n We accordingly find none of these factors significant\nenough—individually or in the aggregate—to create an infer‐\nence of Gatorade’s bad faith.\n 2. The Risk of Reverse Confusion Does Not Demonstrate Ga‐\n torade’s Bad Faith.\n Second, SportFuel claims that the district court conducted\nan insufficient analysis of Gatorade’s intent in using “Sports\nFuel” because its alleged infringement creates reverse confu‐\nsion. “Reverse confusion occurs when a large junior user sat‐\nurates the market with a trademark similar or identical to that\nof a smaller, senior user. In such a case, the junior user does\n\fNo. 18‐3010 17\n\n\nnot seek to profit from the good will associated with the sen‐\nior user’s mark.” Quaker Oats, 978 F.2d at 957. We previously\nexplained that reverse confusion nonetheless harms the sen‐\nior user because “[t]he public comes to assume that the senior\nuser’s products are really the junior user’s or that the former\nhas become somehow connected to the latter.” Id. (quoting\nAmeritech, Inc. v. Am. Info. Tech. Corp., 811 F.2d 960, 964 (6th\nCir. 1987)). As a result, “the senior user loses the value of the\ntrademark—its product identity, corporate identity, control\nover its goodwill and reputation, and ability to move into new\nmarkets.” Id. In this case, the alleged reverse confusion would\noccur when Gatorade used its house mark alongside the term\n“Sports Fuel,” which would effectively coopt SportFuel’s\ntrademark and confuse consumers by leading them to believe\nthe companies were related.\n We cannot agree that the district court erred because it de‐\nclined to examine Gatorade’s intent in using “Sports Fuel.” In\nQuaker Oats, we explained that intent is largely irrelevant in\nreverse confusion cases because “the defendant by definition\nis not palming off or otherwise attempting to create confusion\nas to the source of his product.” Id. at 961 (emphasis in origi‐\nnal); but see Marketquest Grp., Inc. v. BIC Corp., 862 F.3d 927,\n937 (9th Cir. 2017) (applying the Ninth Circuit’s test that ana‐\nlyzes intent).\n But even if it were appropriate to examine Gatorade’s in‐\ntent in using “Sports Fuel” in its slogan, SportFuel’s argument\nwould fail. Gatorade provided evidence showing that it\nadopted the slogan to reflect its various types of sports fuel\nproducts. At the same time, SportFuel neither provides nor\nidentifies substantive evidence to support the notion that Ga‐\ntorade adopted its slogan in any spirit other than good faith.\n\f18 No. 18‐3010\n\n\n\n\n 3. Gatorade Uses “Sports Fuel” Descriptively.\n SportFuel lastly urges that Gatorade views the slogan as a\ntrademark and therefore used “Sports Fuel” unfairly and in\nbad faith. As mentioned above, SportFuel supports this argu‐\nment by pointing out that Gatorade adorns its slogan with a\n“TM.” SportFuel also relies on testimony by Gatorade’s chief\nmarketing officer, in which he stated that he viewed the entire\nslogan, “Gatorade The Sports Fuel Company” as a trademark.\nFor the reasons mentioned earlier in this opinion, we believe\nGatorade employed the term “Sports Fuel” descriptively and\nnot as a trademark. We therefore do not accept that Gatorade\nused the slogan unfairly or in bad faith.\n Further, it is clear from the record that Gatorade provided\nsufficient evidence that it used the term “Sports Fuel” fairly\nand in good faith. Gatorade’s stated purpose in adopting the\nchallenged slogan was to help the company better describe its\nbusiness and the products it sells. Nothing in the record actu‐\nally contradicts this purpose. Gatorade produced evidence\ndemonstrating that the company and its employees view\nthemselves as producers of sports fuels. Moreover, Gatorade\nboth specifically disclaimed exclusive use of the phrase “The\nSports Fuel Company” and prominently used its house mark\nand G Bolt logo in a manner distinct from the slogan.\n III. CONCLUSION\n For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district\ncourt is AFFIRMED.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: SPORTFUEL, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PEPSICO, INC. and the Gatorade Company, Defendants-Appellees.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-08-02\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18‐3010\\nSPORTFUEL, INC.,\\n Plaintiff‐Appellant,\\n v.\\n\\nPEPSICO, INC. and\\nTHE GATORADE COMPANY,\\n Defendants‐Appellees.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 16‐cv‐7868 — Matthew F. Kennelly, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED APRIL 9, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 2, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before KANNE, BARRETT, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\\n KANNE, Circuit Judge. SportFuel appeals the district court’s\\ngrant of summary judgment for Gatorade and its parent com‐\\npany, PepsiCo. SportFuel brought this suit against Gatorade\\nalleging violations of its trademark after Gatorade rebranded\\nitself with the slogan, “Gatorade The Sports Fuel Company.”\\nThe district court deemed Gatorade’s slogan a fair use pro‐\\ntected by the Lanham Act. We affirm.\\n\\f2 No. 18‐3010\\n\\n\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n SportFuel is a Chicago‐based sports nutrition and well‐\\nness consulting firm whose clients include several of Chi‐\\ncago’s prominent professional sports teams and their athletes.\\nThe company provides personalized nutrition consulting ser‐\\nvices to professional and amateur athletes, but also sells\\nSportFuel‐branded dietary supplements. SportFuel holds two\\nregistered trademarks for “SportFuel.” It registered the first\\nfor “food nutrition consultation, nutrition counseling, and\\nproviding information about dietary supplements and nutri‐\\ntion.” After several years of use, SportFuel’s trademark be‐\\ncame “incontestable” in 2013 under 15 U.S.C. § 1065. Sport‐\\nFuel also registered a trademark in 2015 for “goods and ser‐\\nvices related to dietary supplements and sports drinks en‐\\nhanced with vitamins.”\\n Gatorade was created in 1965 at the University of Florida\\nCollege of Medicine and public sales began several years later.\\nUndoubtedly, Gatorade is more widely known. It is the offi‐\\ncial sports drink of the NBA, PGA, MLB, MLS, and many\\nother professional and collegiate organizations. Whether by\\ntelevision imagery of victorious athletes drenching their\\ncoaches or teammates with a Gatorade shower from a distinc‐\\ntive cooler, or through aggressive national media marketing\\ncampaigns, Gatorade became a household name.\\n In addition to its traditional sports drinks, Gatorade now\\ncustomizes its sports drink line by selling formulas that are\\ntailored to the nutritional needs of individual professional\\nathletes. The company also sells numerous other sports nutri‐\\ntion products beyond sports drinks. It began to publicly de‐\\nscribe its products as sports fuels in 2013. Seeking to broaden\\nits public image to reflect its expanded variety of products,\\n\\fNo. 18‐3010 3\\n\\n\\nGatorade began a rebranding effort. In 2016 it registered the\\ntrademark “Gatorade The Sports Fuel Company” with the\\nUnited States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”). Notably,\\nGatorade disclaimed the exclusive use of “The Sports Fuel\\nCompany” after the PTO advised the company that the\\nphrase was merely descriptive of its products.\\n The only link between SportFuel and Gatorade is a nutri‐\\ntionist and dietician named Julie Burns, who founded Sport‐\\nFuel in 1993. Burns had a history of working with Gatorade:\\nshe served as a nutritionist on the Gatorade Sports Science In‐\\nstitute’s Sports Nutrition Advisory Board from 1995 until\\n2003. Burns became aware of Gatorade’s rebranding efforts\\nand the alleged trademark infringement when she saw a Ga‐\\ntorade commercial featuring the new slogan. SportFuel filed\\nsuit against Gatorade and PepsiCo in August 2016. Its com‐\\nplaint alleged trademark infringement (15 U.S.C. § 1051), un‐\\nfair competition, and false designation of origin in violation\\nof the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)). Similarly, SportFuel\\nasserted claims of trademark infringement and unfair compe‐\\ntition in violation of Illinois law. See 815 Ill. Comp. Stat.\\n§§ 505/1, 510/1. Gatorade raised counterclaims for a cancella‐\\ntion of SportFuel’s trademark.\\n Gatorade moved to exclude SportFuel’s expert’s testi‐\\nmony and survey evidence concerning the likelihood of con‐\\nsumer confusion from Gatorade’s use of the slogan. Gatorade\\nalso moved for summary judgment on two grounds. First, it\\nargued that SportFuel failed to provide evidence that allowed\\na jury to find a likelihood of confusion—a necessary element\\nto each of SportFuel’s claims. Second, Gatorade argued that\\nthe Lanham Act protected its use of “Sports Fuel” as a fair use.\\n\\f4 No. 18‐3010\\n\\n\\n On June 14, 2018, the district court granted Gatorade’s mo‐\\ntion for summary judgment after finding that SportFuel failed\\nto produce evidence that demonstrated a factual dispute on\\nany of the three elements of Gatorade’s fair use defense. The\\ncourt also determined that because it found that Gatorade\\nsuccessfully raised the Act’s fair use defense, it need not con‐\\nduct a risk of confusion analysis for SportFuel’s claims. Simi‐\\nlarly, because the court determined that SportFuel’s claims\\nunder Illinois law were subject to the same analysis as its fed‐\\neral claims, it did not separately consider those claims. Sport‐\\nFuel appeals.\\n II. ANALYSIS\\n We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment\\nde novo, viewing all facts in SportFuel’s favor. Georgia‐Pac.\\nConsumer Prods. LP v. Kimberly‐Clark Corp., 647 F.3d 723, 727\\n(7th Cir. 2011). A district court may award summary judg‐\\nment when the evidence shows that “there is no genuine dis‐\\npute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judg‐\\nment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).\\n The Trademark Act of 1946, commonly known as the Lan‐\\nham Act, “federalized” the common law’s trademark protec‐\\ntions. CAE, Inc. v. Clean Air Eng’g, Inc., 267 F.3d 660, 672 (7th\\nCir. 2001). The Lanham Act allows those who employ trade or\\nservice marks to register them for exclusive use in commerce.\\nKP Permanent Make‐Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression I, Inc., 543\\nU.S. 111, 117 (2004). A trademark holder’s right becomes “in‐\\ncontestable” five years after initial registration with the PTO\\nif the holder meets certain conditions. Id.; 15 U.S.C. § 1065.\\n “The holder of a registered mark … has a civil action\\nagainst anyone employing an imitation of it in commerce\\n\\fNo. 18‐3010 5\\n\\n\\nwhen ‘such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mis‐\\ntake, or to deceive.’” KP Permanent Make‐Up, 543 U.S. at 117\\n(quoting 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)(a)). Additionally, the Act pro‐\\nvides trademark‐holders a cause of action against those who\\nmake a false designation of origin for a mark. 15\\nU.S.C. § 1125(a). “To prevail on either claim, a plaintiff must\\nestablish that (1) its mark is protectable and (2) the defend‐\\nant’s use of the mark is likely to cause confusion among con‐\\nsumers.” CAE, Inc., 267 F.3d at 673–74.\\n However, the Lanham Act provides several affirmative\\ndefenses to a plaintiff’s claims, including the “fair use” de‐\\nfense. See 15 U.S.C. § 1115(b). The fair use defense is available\\nagainst even incontestable trademarks, like SportFuel’s.\\nSorensen v. WD‐40 Co., 792 F.3d 712, 722 (7th Cir. 2015). The\\ndefense allows individuals to use otherwise trademarked lan‐\\nguage in a descriptive sense. See Packman v. Chi. Tribune Co.,\\n267 F.3d 628, 639 (7th Cir. 2001); Sunmark, Inc. v. Ocean Spray\\nCranberries, Inc., 64 F.3d 1055, 1058 (7th Cir. 1995). “[A] de‐\\nfendant in a trademark infringement action may invoke the\\nfair use defense by demonstrating that the alleged infringe‐\\nment, ‘is a use, otherwise than as a mark … which is descrip‐\\ntive of and used fairly and in good faith only to describe the\\ngoods or services of such party.’” Sorensen, 792 F.3d at 722\\n(quoting 15 U.S.C. § 1115(b)(4)). In short, to raise the fair use\\ndefense successfully, Gatorade must show that (1) it did not\\nuse “Sports Fuel” as a trademark, (2) the use is descriptive of\\nits goods, and (3) it used the mark fairly and in good faith.\\nSorensen, 792 F.3d at 722; Packman, 267 F.3d at 639. The district\\ncourt determined that Gatorade met all three prongs.\\n On appeal, SportFuel challenges the district court’s con‐\\nclusions on all three prongs of the fair use defense. We review\\n\\f6 No. 18‐3010\\n\\n\\neach prong in turn. However, because we conclude that Ga‐\\ntorade successfully raised a fair use defense against Sport‐\\nFuel’s claims, we do not consider whether Gatorade’s use of\\nthe slogan presented a risk of confusion to SportFuel’s mark.\\n A. Gatorade Did Not Use “Sports Fuel” As a Trademark.\\n SportFuel claims that the district court erred in finding\\nthat Gatorade did not use the term “Sports Fuel” as a trade‐\\nmark. SportFuel supports its argument with three factors: Ga‐\\ntorade uses the slogan as an “attention getting symbol,” it\\nplaced a trademark indication after the slogan, and it sought\\nto trademark the slogan.\\n Words or phrases function as trademarks “when [they are]\\nused by a source of a product to identify itself to the public as\\nthe source of its product and to create in the public conscious‐\\nness an awareness of the uniqueness of the source and of its\\nproducts.” Sorensen, 792 F.3d at 722–23 (quoting Sands, Taylor\\n& Wood Co. v. Quaker Oats Co., 978 F.2d 947, 953 (7th Cir.\\n1992)). Product packaging can include more than one source\\nindicator. Sorensen, 792 F.3d at 723. We look to multiple factors\\nin how a defendant employs a challenged term or phrase to\\ndetermine whether it serves as a source indicator and there‐\\nfore is used as a trademark. Our decision in Quaker Oats is\\nparticularly helpful to illustrate this point.\\n As here, Quaker Oats involved a suit over Gatorade’s use\\nof a slogan in an advertising campaign. 978 F.2d at 953–54.\\nThat campaign used the trademarked phrase “Thirst Aid” in\\n\\fNo. 18‐3010 7\\n\\n\\nthe slogan “Gatorade is THIRST AID.”1 Id. There, the district\\ncourt determined that although Gatorade used its house mark\\nin addition to the slogan, the term “Thirst Aid” also served as\\na source indicator. Id. at 953. The district court emphasized\\nthat Gatorade featured the term “Thirst Aid” prominently on\\nits product packaging—even more prominently than the Ga‐\\ntorade house mark. Gatorade appealed summary judgment in\\nthe plaintiff’s favor, arguing that it used the term “Thirst Aid”\\ndescriptively and not as a trademark. Id.\\n We affirmed and explained that although Gatorade used\\n“Thirst Aid” in tandem with its house mark, it used the term\\nas an “attention‐getting symbol.” Id. at 954. We observed that\\nthe “Gatorade is Thirst Aid” phrase employed a rhyming\\nplay‐on‐words and that Gatorade featured the slogan in\\nlarger, more noticeable font than the house mark. Id. We con‐\\nsequently determined that Gatorade’s use of the slogan\\nwould likely lead consumers to associate the terms “Thirst\\nAid” and “Gatorade,” and that such a use of “Thirst Aid” was\\nmeant to help consumers identify the source of the product.\\nId. These factors supported the district court’s conclusion that\\nGatorade used the phrase as a trademark. Id.\\n In this case, however, the record does not support the no‐\\ntion that Gatorade used the term “Sports Fuel” as a source in‐\\ndicator. Because visuals help considerably in trademark cases,\\nwe include the following photographs included in the parties’\\nbriefs of Gatorade’s use of the slogan:\\n\\n\\n\\n 1 Although the full slogan declared, “Gatorade is THIRST AID for\\nThat Deep Down Body Thirst,” Gatorade’s advertisements and the ensu‐\\ning litigation focused on the first portion. 978 F.2d at 950.\\n\\f8 No. 18‐3010\\n\\fNo. 18‐3010 9\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n As in Quaker Oats, here Gatorade used the term “Sports\\nFuel” in conjunction with its house mark. But the similarities\\nend there. The products’ individual packaging and displays\\nfeature Gatorade’s house mark and G Bolt logo more promi‐\\nnently. Gatorade rarely uses the term “Sports Fuel” directly\\non product packaging, except for where the company labeled\\na “Sports Fuel Drink” with the term. Instead, it primarily fea‐\\ntures the slogan on in‐store displays and other advertise‐\\nments—appearing almost as a subtitle to the house mark. Ad‐\\nditionally, the “Sports Fuel” slogan lacks the catchy, rhyming\\nplay‐on‐words at issue in Quaker Oats. Nothing about Ga‐\\ntorade’s use in this context suggests that consumers would\\nview “Sports Fuel” as a source indicator.\\n SportFuel emphasizes that Gatorade employed a “TM”\\nsymbol with the slogan and obtained a trademark for the slo‐\\ngan. But these facts fail to support SportFuel’s desired conclu‐\\nsion. The slogan notably included Gatorade’s trademark‐pro‐\\ntected house mark. Additionally, Gatorade specifically dis‐\\nclaimed exclusive use of the phrase “The Sports Fuel Com‐\\npany” in its trademark application for “Gatorade The Sports\\nFuel Company.” Sunmark, 64 F.3d at 1059 (noting that Ocean\\nSpray disclaimed exclusive use of a contested, descriptive\\nphrase). During the application process for Gatorade’s slogan,\\n\\f10 No. 18‐3010\\n\\n\\nthe PTO specifically advised Gatorade that it viewed the term\\n“Sports Fuel” as descriptive and therefore inappropriate for\\ntrademark use. And as the district court pointed out, Ga‐\\ntorade’s chief marketing officer stated in his deposition that\\nhe viewed the whole phrase—including the protected house\\nmark—as a trademark.\\n Thus, even construing the record in SportFuel’s favor on\\nsummary judgment, insufficient evidence supports Sport‐\\nFuel’s claim. Accordingly, we do not believe the district court\\nerred in determining that Gatorade never employed the term\\n“Sports Fuel” as a trademark in its “Gatorade The Sports Fuel\\nCompany” slogan.\\n B. Gatorade Used “Sports Fuel” Descriptively.\\n The district court also found that Gatorade used “Sports\\nFuel” descriptively, rather than suggestively, and therefore\\nnot as a trademark. SportFuel maintains that the district court\\nerred in this determination. We review the district court’s\\nclassification de novo. Quaker Oats, 978 F.2d at 952. “Inherent\\ndistinctiveness is a question of fact, and summary judgment\\nis appropriate only if, reading the record in [SportFuel’s] fa‐\\nvor, no reasonable factfinder could decide for it.” Uncommon,\\nLLC v. Spigen, Inc., 926 F.3d 409, 420 (7th Cir. 2019).\\n Trademark law awards trademark protection to various\\ncategories of words, terms, and phrases if consumers rely on\\nthose marks to identify and distinguish one company’s goods\\nor services from those of others. Platinum Home Mort. Corp. v.\\nPlatinum Fin. Grp., Inc., 149 F.3d 722, 727 (7th Cir. 1998).\\n“Marks are classified into five categories of increasing distinc‐\\ntiveness: (1) generic, (2) descriptive, (3) suggestive, (4) arbi‐\\ntrary, and (5) fanciful.” Id. Generally, trademark law does not\\n\\fNo. 18‐3010 11\\n\\n\\nallow sellers to register marks for terms that are generic or\\ndescriptive of products or services. Custom Vehicles, Inc. v. For‐\\nest River, Inc., 476 F.3d 481, 483 (7th Cir. 2007). We previously\\nexplained that this rule prevents sellers from branding their\\nproduct with a name or term that the public uses to identify\\nthe category of items. Id. An exception to this general rule is\\nthat “[d]escriptive terms … are protectable as a trademark if\\nthey have developed secondary meaning.” Sorensen, 792 F.3d\\nat 723. But a descriptive term only acquires a secondary mean‐\\ning after most consumers think of the term as the name of the\\nproduct instead of as descriptive of the product. Packman, 267\\nF.3d at 639.\\n Conversely, the law affords automatic protection to sug‐\\ngestive, arbitrary, and fanciful terms, which are inherently\\ndistinctive. Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763, 768\\n(1992); Platinum Home Mortg., 149 F.3d at 727. We recently\\nnoted that “[t]he line between descriptiveness and sugges‐\\ntiveness can be difficult to draw.” Uncommon, 926 F.3d at 421.\\n “A mark is descriptive when ‘it describes the product cat‐\\negory to which the brand belongs.’” Id. (quoting Custom Vehi‐\\ncles, 476 F.3d at 483. Descriptive phrases refer to a characteris‐\\ntic of the product. Quaker Oats, 978 F.2d at 953. But they need\\nnot be common phrases. Id.\\n Suggestive marks, on the other hand, do not “directly and\\nimmediately describe an aspect of the goods,” rather they “re‐\\nquire[] an observer or listener to use imagination and percep‐\\ntion to determine the nature of the goods.” Uncommon, 926\\nF.3d at 421 (quotations omitted). However, just because a\\nphrase is unfamiliar and “requires a hearer to think about its\\nmeaning” does not necessarily mean it is suggestive. Quaker\\nOats, 978 F.2d at 953. Courts look to a variety of factors to\\n\\f12 No. 18‐3010\\n\\n\\ndistinguish between descriptive and suggestive terminology,\\nbut we find two factors particularly helpful in this instance.2\\n“First, we can look to how, and how often, the relevant market\\nuses the word [or phrase] in question.” Uncommon, 926 F.3d\\nat 421. Second, we employ the “imagination test,” where we\\nask whether the word or phrase imparts information about\\nthe product or service directly or rather requires “some oper‐\\nation of the imagination to connect it with the goods.” Id. at\\n422 (quoting Platinum Home Mortg., 149 F.3d at 727). Both fac‐\\ntors lead us to characterize the slogan here as descriptive.\\n First, producers of nutritional products for athletes regu‐\\nlarly invoke the “Sports Fuel” terminology to describe the\\nproducts they sell. Gatorade provided numerous examples of\\nthis widespread industry use to the district court, including,\\nfor example, Twin Laboratories’ “SPORT FUEL” and Trident\\nSports’ “SPORTS FUEL.” Similarly, the PTO recognized this\\npoint when it processed Gatorade’s trademark application\\nstating, “[a]s SPORTS FUEL is commonly used in reference to\\nsports nutrition, consumers encountering the wording THE\\nSPORTS FUEL COMPANY in the proposed mark would\\nreadily understand it to mean that the goods are provided by\\na company that provides sports nutrition.” This widespread\\nindustry use, coupled with Gatorade’s disclaimer of exclusive\\nuse of “The Sports Fuel Company,” supports Gatorade’s ar‐\\ngument it used “Sports Fuel” descriptively.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 2\\n Courts also occasionally find dictionary definitions and third‐party\\npatent registrations probative of whether a term or phrase is descriptive.\\nSee Uncommon, 926 F.3d at 422‐23.\\n\\fNo. 18‐3010 13\\n\\n\\n Second, SportFuel argues that Gatorade’s use of “Sports\\nFuel” is suggestive—and not descriptive—of Gatorade’s\\nproducts because the term requires a mental leap to deduce\\nthat the company is really selling athletic nutrition products.\\nTo support this notion, SportFuel also points out that Ga‐\\ntorade’s consumers, by and large, are not high‐performance\\nathletes. We find these arguments unpersuasive. The use of\\n“Sports Fuel” in “Gatorade The Sports Fuel Company” clearly\\ndescribes the category of goods that Gatorade produces. It re‐\\nquires no imaginative leap to understand that a company sell‐\\ning “Sports Fuel” is selling a variety of food products de‐\\nsigned for athletes. That non‐athletes regularly consume Ga‐\\ntorade’s products has no bearing whether the term is descrip‐\\ntive. Just as the pervasive use of yoga pants and other active‐\\nwear as casual clothing does not change the athletic charac‐\\nteristics of those products, the fact that Gatorade sells more\\nsports drinks to average joes who limit their rigorous exercise\\nto lawn mowing does not change the athletic characteristics\\nof Gatorade’s products.\\n We conclude that Gatorade’s slogan uses “Sports Fuel” in\\na descriptive sense.\\n C. Gatorade Uses “Sports Fuel” Fairly and in Good Faith.\\n A party raising a fair use defense “must show that it used\\nthe plaintiff’s mark fairly and in good faith.” Sorensen, 792\\nF.3d at 725. Courts determine defendants’ good faith by look‐\\ning to their subjective purpose in using a slogan. Packman, 267\\nF.3d at 642. As an initial matter, we note that although the dis‐\\ntrict court’s analysis implicitly confirmed that Gatorade used\\n“Sport Fuel” in good faith, it never stated its conclusion ex‐\\nplicitly. Nonetheless, as we explain, we believe Gatorade pro‐\\nduced sufficient evidence to show that it descriptively used\\n\\f14 No. 18‐3010\\n\\n\\nthe term “Sports Fuel” in its slogan fairly and in good faith.\\nSportFuel insisted during summary judgment that the evi‐\\ndence, construed in its favor, demonstrated that Gatorade\\nacted unfairly and in bad faith by using its slogan. But the dis‐\\ntrict court rejected SportFuel’s argument and explained why\\nSportFuel failed to show that Gatorade acted in bad faith.\\n On appeal, SportFuel challenges the district court’s con‐\\nclusion for three reasons. First, SportFuel claims that evidence\\nproduced during discovery justified inferring bad faith on\\nGatorade’s part. Second, the district court purportedly erred\\nin concluding that Gatorade used “Sports Fuel” fairly given\\nthe risk that reverse confusion posed to SportFuel. Third, Ga‐\\ntorade uses “Sports Fuel” in a trademark manner, beyond de‐\\nscribing its goods or services.\\n 1. SportFuel Provides Insufficient Evidence of Gatorade’s Bad\\n Faith.\\n SportFuel alleges that the district court erred because it\\nnever properly considered evidence of Gatorade’s bad faith.\\nIt provides four main examples to support this argument.\\nFirst, it argues that Gatorade was aware of SportFuel’s mark\\nby virtue of Gatorade’s previous working relationship with\\nJulie Burns. Second, it suggests that Gatorade’s continued use\\nof “Sports Fuel” after SportFuel filed suit betrays its bad faith.\\nThird, SportFuel points to a dearth of evidence concerning\\nGatorade’s adoption of its new slogan. Fourth, SportFuel al‐\\nludes to a falling out between Gatorade and Burns, suggesting\\nthat Gatorade adopted the new slogan to settle an old score.\\n SportFuel alleges that Gatorade’s bad faith is demon‐\\nstrated by the fact that it began to use “Sports Fuel” even\\nthough it knew of SportFuel’s mark. But the defendant’s\\n\\fNo. 18‐3010 15\\n\\n\\n“mere knowledge” of the plaintiff’s mark, without other evi‐\\ndence of subjective bad faith, is insufficient. Sorensen, 792 F.3d\\nat 725. Accordingly, “[t]o survive summary judgment, a\\nplaintiff must point to something more that suggests subjec‐\\ntive bad faith.” Id. Therefore, without other, substantial evi‐\\ndence, this factor provides no support for the claim that Ga‐\\ntorade used “Sports Fuel” in bad faith.\\n SportFuel also points to Gatorade’s continued use of\\n“Sports Fuel,” even after SportFuel filed this suit. But “it is\\nlawful to use a mark that does not infringe some other; inten‐\\ntional infringement creates problems, but [a defendant’s] in‐\\ntentional use of a mark that [it] had every right to use is not\\nitself a ground on which to draw an adverse inference.” M‐F‐\\nG Corp. v. EMRA Corp., 817 F.2d 410, 412 (7th Cir. 1987). Ga‐\\ntorade believed it had every right to use “Sports Fuel” in a\\ndescriptive sense, so its continued use after SportFuel filed\\nsuit also fails to justify an inference of bad faith.\\n Third, SportFuel suggests that Gatorade failed to produce\\nevidence in discovery that must have existed. Specifically, Ga‐\\ntorade’s production included no documentation related to its\\napproval of the slogan “Gatorade The Sports Fuel Company.”\\nSportFuel argues that a company as large as Gatorade cer‐\\ntainly required high‐level approval before adopting a nation‐\\nwide rebranding campaign. And presumably Gatorade\\nwould possess documentation of that approval. Yet, “[s]pecu‐\\nlation will not suffice” to defeat summary judgment. Borcky v.\\nMaytag Corp., 248 F.3d 691, 695 (7th Cir. 2001); Amadio v. Ford\\nMotor Co., 238 F.3d 919, 927 (7th Cir. 2001) (“It is well‐settled\\nthat speculation may not be used to manufacture a genuine\\nissue of fact.”); Gorbitz v. Corvilla, Inc., 196 F.3d 879, 882 (7th\\nCir.1999). SportFuel’s argument relies on the assumption that\\n\\f16 No. 18‐3010\\n\\n\\nsomething must have existed. But the time to pursue this idea\\nwas during discovery. SportFuel did not, and it cannot now\\navoid summary judgment with assumption or speculation.\\nThe record neither provides evidence to support the claim\\nthat Gatorade adopted the slogan in bad faith, nor indicates\\nthat Gatorade purposefully failed to produce such evidence.\\n Fourth, SportFuel suggests that Gatorade’s adoption of\\nthe slogan relates to a falling out between Burns and Ga‐\\ntorade. The problem with this claim—much like the last argu‐\\nment—is that SportFuel provides no relevant evidence as sup‐\\nport. It relies on Burns’s deposition testimony, where she\\nstated that her relationship with Gatorade ended after she re‐\\nfused to endorse one of Gatorade’s new sugary sports bar\\nproducts. However, Burns’s relationship with Gatorade\\nended more than a decade before the alleged infringement be‐\\ngan. And the idea that a new slogan for a nation‐wide re‐\\nbranding campaign and stale antipathy towards Burns are\\nconnected is facially incredible when otherwise unsupported\\nby the record.\\n We accordingly find none of these factors significant\\nenough—individually or in the aggregate—to create an infer‐\\nence of Gatorade’s bad faith.\\n 2. The Risk of Reverse Confusion Does Not Demonstrate Ga‐\\n torade’s Bad Faith.\\n Second, SportFuel claims that the district court conducted\\nan insufficient analysis of Gatorade’s intent in using “Sports\\nFuel” because its alleged infringement creates reverse confu‐\\nsion. “Reverse confusion occurs when a large junior user sat‐\\nurates the market with a trademark similar or identical to that\\nof a smaller, senior user. In such a case, the junior user does\\n\\fNo. 18‐3010 17\\n\\n\\nnot seek to profit from the good will associated with the sen‐\\nior user’s mark.” Quaker Oats, 978 F.2d at 957. We previously\\nexplained that reverse confusion nonetheless harms the sen‐\\nior user because “[t]he public comes to assume that the senior\\nuser’s products are really the junior user’s or that the former\\nhas become somehow connected to the latter.” Id. (quoting\\nAmeritech, Inc. v. Am. Info. Tech. Corp., 811 F.2d 960, 964 (6th\\nCir. 1987)). As a result, “the senior user loses the value of the\\ntrademark—its product identity, corporate identity, control\\nover its goodwill and reputation, and ability to move into new\\nmarkets.” Id. In this case, the alleged reverse confusion would\\noccur when Gatorade used its house mark alongside the term\\n“Sports Fuel,” which would effectively coopt SportFuel’s\\ntrademark and confuse consumers by leading them to believe\\nthe companies were related.\\n We cannot agree that the district court erred because it de‐\\nclined to examine Gatorade’s intent in using “Sports Fuel.” In\\nQuaker Oats, we explained that intent is largely irrelevant in\\nreverse confusion cases because “the defendant by definition\\nis not palming off or otherwise attempting to create confusion\\nas to the source of his product.” Id. at 961 (emphasis in origi‐\\nnal); but see Marketquest Grp., Inc. v. BIC Corp., 862 F.3d 927,\\n937 (9th Cir. 2017) (applying the Ninth Circuit’s test that ana‐\\nlyzes intent).\\n But even if it were appropriate to examine Gatorade’s in‐\\ntent in using “Sports Fuel” in its slogan, SportFuel’s argument\\nwould fail. Gatorade provided evidence showing that it\\nadopted the slogan to reflect its various types of sports fuel\\nproducts. At the same time, SportFuel neither provides nor\\nidentifies substantive evidence to support the notion that Ga‐\\ntorade adopted its slogan in any spirit other than good faith.\\n\\f18 No. 18‐3010\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 3. Gatorade Uses “Sports Fuel” Descriptively.\\n SportFuel lastly urges that Gatorade views the slogan as a\\ntrademark and therefore used “Sports Fuel” unfairly and in\\nbad faith. As mentioned above, SportFuel supports this argu‐\\nment by pointing out that Gatorade adorns its slogan with a\\n“TM.” SportFuel also relies on testimony by Gatorade’s chief\\nmarketing officer, in which he stated that he viewed the entire\\nslogan, “Gatorade The Sports Fuel Company” as a trademark.\\nFor the reasons mentioned earlier in this opinion, we believe\\nGatorade employed the term “Sports Fuel” descriptively and\\nnot as a trademark. We therefore do not accept that Gatorade\\nused the slogan unfairly or in bad faith.\\n Further, it is clear from the record that Gatorade provided\\nsufficient evidence that it used the term “Sports Fuel” fairly\\nand in good faith. Gatorade’s stated purpose in adopting the\\nchallenged slogan was to help the company better describe its\\nbusiness and the products it sells. Nothing in the record actu‐\\nally contradicts this purpose. Gatorade produced evidence\\ndemonstrating that the company and its employees view\\nthemselves as producers of sports fuels. Moreover, Gatorade\\nboth specifically disclaimed exclusive use of the phrase “The\\nSports Fuel Company” and prominently used its house mark\\nand G Bolt logo in a manner distinct from the slogan.\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district\\ncourt is AFFIRMED.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3778,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4645379,"string":"4,645,379"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Mark Richardson v. CTA"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-08-02"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-2199"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before: JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge Nos.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"Defendant-Appellee. Judge\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n Chicago, Illinois 60604\\n\\n August 2, 2019\\n\\n Before:\\n\\n JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge\\n\\n MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge\\n\\n MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge\\n\\n\\nNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\\n Appeals from the United States District\\nMARK RICHARDSON, Court for the Northern District of\\n Plaintiff-Appellant, Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n\\n v. No. 16-cv-03027\\n\\nCHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY, John Robert Blakey,\\n Defendant-Appellee. Judge.\\n\\n ORDER\\n\\n The opinion issued in the above-entitled case on June 12, 2019, is hereby amended\\nas follows:\\n\\n On Page 7, line 23, the last sentence of the paragraph, which states,\\n\\n EEOC regulations interpreting the ADA are entitled to\\n deference under Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources\\n Defense Council, Inc., unless they are “arbitrary, capricious, or\\n manifestly contrary to the statute.” 467 U.S. 837, 844 (1984);\\n see Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 130 F.3d 893, 899 n.3 (10th\\n Cir. 1997).\\n\\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 Page 2\\n\\n is amended to read,\\n\\n We view EEOC regulations interpreting the ADA’s\\n definitions as “instructive guidance.” Steffen v. Donahoe, 680\\n F.3d 738, 743 n.3 (7th Cir. 2012); see also Waldrip v. Gen. Elec.\\n Co., 325 F.3d 652, 655 n.1 (5th Cir. 2003) (EEOC regulations\\n interpreting 42 U.S.C. § 12102 are “persuasive authority”).1\\n\\n Additionally, on Page 12, line 20, the last sentence of the paragraph, which\\n states,\\n\\n While EEOC interpretive guidance is “not entitled to full\\n Chevron deference,” it does “reflect a body of experience and\\n informed judgment to which courts and litigants may\\n properly resort for guidance” and is therefore “entitled to a\\n measure of respect under the less deferential Skidmore [v. Swift\\n & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944)] standard.” Fed. Express Corp. v.\\n Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389, 399 (2008) (citations and internal\\n quotation marks omitted); see Gile v. United Airlines, Inc., 95\\n F.3d 492, 497 (7th Cir. 1996).\\n\\n shall be removed.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 1 Because Congress did not delegate authority to the EEOC to implement 42 U.S.C. § 12102, the precise\\ndegree of deference courts owe to EEOC regulations interpreting the term “disability” is an open question.\\nSee Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky., Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184, 194 (2002) (“Because both parties accept the EEOC\\nregulations as reasonable, we assume without deciding that they are, and we have no occasion to decide\\nwhat level of deference, if any, they are due.”), superseded by statute, ADAAA, 122 Stat. 3553; Sutton v. United\\nAir Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471, 480 (1999) (same), superseded by statute, ADAAA, 122 Stat. 3553; Albertson’s, Inc.\\nv. Kirkingburg, 527 U.S. 555, 563 n.10 (1999) (same); see also Winsley v. Cook County, 563 F.3d 598, 603 n.2 (7th\\nCir. 2009) (EEOC interpretations of § 12102 are “not necessarily entitled to any special deference by the\\ncourts”).\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4422632/\", \"author_raw\": \"Defendant-Appellee. Judge\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"JOEL M FLAUM"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"MICHAEL S KANNE"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"MICHAEL Y SCUDDER"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"JOEL M FLAUM\": \", Circuit\", \"MICHAEL S KANNE\": \", Circuit\", \"MICHAEL Y SCUDDER\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645379/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":8,"string":"8"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Mark Richardson v. CTA\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-08-02\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nUnited States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n Chicago, Illinois 60604\n\n August 2, 2019\n\n Before:\n\n JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge\n\n MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge\n\n MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge\n\n\nNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\n Appeals from the United States District\nMARK RICHARDSON, Court for the Northern District of\n Plaintiff-Appellant, Illinois, Eastern Division.\n\n v. No. 16-cv-03027\n\nCHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY, John Robert Blakey,\n Defendant-Appellee. Judge.\n\n ORDER\n\n The opinion issued in the above-entitled case on June 12, 2019, is hereby amended\nas follows:\n\n On Page 7, line 23, the last sentence of the paragraph, which states,\n\n EEOC regulations interpreting the ADA are entitled to\n deference under Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources\n Defense Council, Inc., unless they are “arbitrary, capricious, or\n manifestly contrary to the statute.” 467 U.S. 837, 844 (1984);\n see Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 130 F.3d 893, 899 n.3 (10th\n Cir. 1997).\n\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 Page 2\n\n is amended to read,\n\n We view EEOC regulations interpreting the ADA’s\n definitions as “instructive guidance.” Steffen v. Donahoe, 680\n F.3d 738, 743 n.3 (7th Cir. 2012); see also Waldrip v. Gen. Elec.\n Co., 325 F.3d 652, 655 n.1 (5th Cir. 2003) (EEOC regulations\n interpreting 42 U.S.C. § 12102 are “persuasive authority”).1\n\n Additionally, on Page 12, line 20, the last sentence of the paragraph, which\n states,\n\n While EEOC interpretive guidance is “not entitled to full\n Chevron deference,” it does “reflect a body of experience and\n informed judgment to which courts and litigants may\n properly resort for guidance” and is therefore “entitled to a\n measure of respect under the less deferential Skidmore [v. Swift\n & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944)] standard.” Fed. Express Corp. v.\n Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389, 399 (2008) (citations and internal\n quotation marks omitted); see Gile v. United Airlines, Inc., 95\n F.3d 492, 497 (7th Cir. 1996).\n\n shall be removed.\n\n\n\n\n 1 Because Congress did not delegate authority to the EEOC to implement 42 U.S.C. § 12102, the precise\ndegree of deference courts owe to EEOC regulations interpreting the term “disability” is an open question.\nSee Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky., Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184, 194 (2002) (“Because both parties accept the EEOC\nregulations as reasonable, we assume without deciding that they are, and we have no occasion to decide\nwhat level of deference, if any, they are due.”), superseded by statute, ADAAA, 122 Stat. 3553; Sutton v. United\nAir Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471, 480 (1999) (same), superseded by statute, ADAAA, 122 Stat. 3553; Albertson’s, Inc.\nv. Kirkingburg, 527 U.S. 555, 563 n.10 (1999) (same); see also Winsley v. Cook County, 563 F.3d 598, 603 n.2 (7th\nCir. 2009) (EEOC interpretations of § 12102 are “not necessarily entitled to any special deference by the\ncourts”).\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Mark Richardson v. CTA\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-08-02\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nUnited States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n Chicago, Illinois 60604\\n\\n August 2, 2019\\n\\n Before:\\n\\n JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge\\n\\n MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge\\n\\n MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge\\n\\n\\nNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\\n Appeals from the United States District\\nMARK RICHARDSON, Court for the Northern District of\\n Plaintiff-Appellant, Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n\\n v. No. 16-cv-03027\\n\\nCHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY, John Robert Blakey,\\n Defendant-Appellee. Judge.\\n\\n ORDER\\n\\n The opinion issued in the above-entitled case on June 12, 2019, is hereby amended\\nas follows:\\n\\n On Page 7, line 23, the last sentence of the paragraph, which states,\\n\\n EEOC regulations interpreting the ADA are entitled to\\n deference under Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources\\n Defense Council, Inc., unless they are “arbitrary, capricious, or\\n manifestly contrary to the statute.” 467 U.S. 837, 844 (1984);\\n see Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 130 F.3d 893, 899 n.3 (10th\\n Cir. 1997).\\n\\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 Page 2\\n\\n is amended to read,\\n\\n We view EEOC regulations interpreting the ADA’s\\n definitions as “instructive guidance.” Steffen v. Donahoe, 680\\n F.3d 738, 743 n.3 (7th Cir. 2012); see also Waldrip v. Gen. Elec.\\n Co., 325 F.3d 652, 655 n.1 (5th Cir. 2003) (EEOC regulations\\n interpreting 42 U.S.C. § 12102 are “persuasive authority”).1\\n\\n Additionally, on Page 12, line 20, the last sentence of the paragraph, which\\n states,\\n\\n While EEOC interpretive guidance is “not entitled to full\\n Chevron deference,” it does “reflect a body of experience and\\n informed judgment to which courts and litigants may\\n properly resort for guidance” and is therefore “entitled to a\\n measure of respect under the less deferential Skidmore [v. Swift\\n & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944)] standard.” Fed. Express Corp. v.\\n Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389, 399 (2008) (citations and internal\\n quotation marks omitted); see Gile v. United Airlines, Inc., 95\\n F.3d 492, 497 (7th Cir. 1996).\\n\\n shall be removed.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 1 Because Congress did not delegate authority to the EEOC to implement 42 U.S.C. § 12102, the precise\\ndegree of deference courts owe to EEOC regulations interpreting the term “disability” is an open question.\\nSee Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky., Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184, 194 (2002) (“Because both parties accept the EEOC\\nregulations as reasonable, we assume without deciding that they are, and we have no occasion to decide\\nwhat level of deference, if any, they are due.”), superseded by statute, ADAAA, 122 Stat. 3553; Sutton v. United\\nAir Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471, 480 (1999) (same), superseded by statute, ADAAA, 122 Stat. 3553; Albertson’s, Inc.\\nv. Kirkingburg, 527 U.S. 555, 563 n.10 (1999) (same); see also Winsley v. Cook County, 563 F.3d 598, 603 n.2 (7th\\nCir. 2009) (EEOC interpretations of § 12102 are “not necessarily entitled to any special deference by the\\ncourts”).\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3779,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4645380,"string":"4,645,380"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"Marcus D. TORRY, Latrell Q. Goss, and William I. Roberts, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Marcus Torry v. City of Chicago"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-08-02"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-1935"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Kanne, Barrett, Brennan\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"BARRETT, Circuit Judge\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-1935\\nMARCUS D. TORRY, LATRELL Q. GOSS,\\nand WILLIAM I. ROBERTS,\\n Plaintiffs-Appellants,\\n\\n v.\\n\\nCITY OF CHICAGO, et al.,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 1:15-cv-8383 — John Robert Blakey, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED APRIL 9, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 2, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before KANNE, BARRETT, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\\n BARRETT, Circuit Judge. One afternoon in 2014, three Chi-\\ncago police officers stopped three black men in a grey sedan\\nto investigate a nearby shooting that had happened a few\\nhours earlier. When the passengers sued the officers a year\\nlater, none of the officers remembered the Terry stop. Lacking\\nrecall, they relied on other evidence to show that reasonable\\nsuspicion had existed for it. Cell phone footage taken by one\\n\\f2 No. 18-1935\\n\\nof the plaintiffs during the encounter depicted Sergeant Rob-\\nert King, the officer who initiated the stop, citing the plain-\\ntiffs’ suspicious behavior in the area of the shooting as the rea-\\nson that he had pulled them over. And a police report showed\\nthat dispatches to officers investigating the shooting, includ-\\ning King, identified the suspects as three black men in a grey\\ncar. The descriptions of the car’s model varied, and none was\\nan exact match for the car that the plaintiffs were driving. But\\nreasonable suspicion can exist without an exact match, and\\nthe district court held that these descriptions were close\\nenough to justify the Terry stop. In any event, the court said,\\nthe officers were entitled to qualified immunity because the\\nstop did not violate clearly established law.\\n Before us, the plaintiffs have repeatedly suggested that the\\ndefendants’ failure of memory is a concession of liability. In\\nother words, they maintain that if a police officer doesn’t re-\\nmember a stop now, reasonable suspicion could not have jus-\\ntified it at the time. But the Fourth Amendment does not gov-\\nern how an officer proves that he had reasonable suspicion for\\na Terry stop; he can rely on evidence other than his memory\\nto establish what he knew when the stop occurred. The police\\nreport demonstrates that King knew that the suspects in the\\nshooting had been identified as three black men driving a\\ngrey car, and the cell-phone video shows him giving the\\nshooting as the reason for the stop. We agree with the district\\ncourt that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.\\n I.\\n On the morning of September 23, 2014, a drive-by shoot-\\ning occurred about half a mile from Manley High School,\\nwhich is located on West Polk Street in Chicago. Sergeant\\nRobert King was on duty that day as a “school sergeant”—an\\n\\fNo. 18-1935 3\\n\\nofficer who responds to and investigates violence near\\nschools within his beat. A police report detailing the chronol-\\nogy of events related to the shooting shows that King re-\\nsponded to the shooting and that three descriptions of sus-\\npects were received while he was assisting.1 One identified\\nthe suspects’ vehicle as a newer-model grey Nissan with three\\nblack male occupants. The second was almost identical to the\\nfirst but specified that the Nissan was an SUV. The third iden-\\ntified the shooter as a medium-complected black male wear-\\ning a white t-shirt and driving a grey Trailblazer (a Chevrolet\\nSUV).\\n Shortly past noon on that same day, Marcus Torry and\\nWilliam Roberts picked up Latrell Goss, Torry’s brother, in a\\ngrey Ford Fusion sedan. Goss’s car had broken down on West\\nPolk Street; Torry and Roberts met him at his car and then\\ndrove him west on West Polk to an auto parts store. They\\npassed Manley High School as they drove to the store, and\\nthey passed it again when they returned the same way. As\\nthey went by the school for the second time, they were pulled\\nover by three police officers—King, Jacek Leja, and Justin Rae-\\nther. Torry captured video of the ensuing encounter on his\\ncell phone camera. Like the district court, we draw our de-\\n\\n\\n 1 This report is from the Office of Emergency Management and Com-\\nmunications and is called a “Chicago Police Department Event Query Re-\\nport.” For simplicity’s sake, we will refer to it as a “police report.” The\\nrecord also contains post-dated supplementary reports that expand on the\\ninformation contained in the police report. The parties dispute the admis-\\nsibility of these supplementary reports, but because they are not necessary\\nto show that King knew about the shooting and suspect descriptions, we\\ndo not address them.\\n\\f4 No. 18-1935\\n\\nscription of the encounter primarily from the video, supple-\\nmenting it with other undisputed facts and drawing all infer-\\nences in the plaintiffs’ favor.2\\n After Torry pulled over, King approached his window\\nand asked for his license and registration. Torry asked why\\nhe had been stopped, and King replied that “this was about\\nyour third pass by this school.” Torry protested that he had\\nnot driven by the school three times and handed over his li-\\ncense and registration. King told him not to argue; Torry de-\\nmanded King’s badge number.\\n King told Torry to step out of the car and reached for the\\nhandle of the driver’s door, which prompted Torry to ask if\\nhe was under arrest. King didn’t directly answer the question\\nbut said, “Sir, get out of the car please. Sir, this is a Terry stop,\\nI have the right to search the car, get out of the car.” Torry,\\nprotesting that he had done nothing wrong, failed to comply\\nwith multiple commands that he exit the vehicle. King told\\nTorry, “If you don’t get out of the car, I will remove you from\\nthe car,” and Torry replied, “I’m gonna remove myself but I\\njust don’t want to get—y’all get me, shoot me, or kill me for\\nsomething I didn’t do wrong.” King responded, “Yes, sir, ab-\\nsolutely; hands up, don’t shoot, there you go.” Neither King\\nnor the other officers had a gun out, but Torry feared police\\nbrutality.\\n Torry testified that when he finally removed his seatbelt,\\nKing “just grab[bed] me out of the car.” King ordered Torry\\nto “come on out, sir,” as Torry repeatedly exclaimed, “Please\\n\\n 2 Neither side contests the admissibility of the video, which the plain-\\ntiffs and defendants introduced as a joint exhibit in the district court. The\\nvideo runs the full length of the stop.\\n\\fNo. 18-1935 5\\n\\ndon’t shoot.” King walked Torry to a squad car, saying, “Let’s\\ngo back to my car, sir, right over here,” and placed him inside.\\nGoss testified that an officer grabbed him out of the car too,\\nbut neither Goss nor Roberts were placed in a squad car. After\\nthe plaintiffs had been repeatedly ordered to leave the car but\\nbefore they had complied, one of the officers shook a can of\\nmace, although he never used it.\\n After placing Torry in the back of his squad car, King sat\\nin the front for a few minutes while he ran Torry’s name\\nthrough a warrant check. Torry demanded to know why he\\nhad been pulled over, and King explained that Torry had\\n“cruised this street here around the school,” which was an\\narea of “safe passage” and “the immediate location of a shoot-\\ning this morning.” (An area of “safe passage” is a designated\\narea where extra precautions are taken to prevent violence\\nthat might affect students on their way to and from school.)\\nKing then returned to Torry’s car, where the officers talked to\\nGoss and Roberts, who testified that the other officers patted\\nthem down and searched Goss’s pockets. Still in the squad\\ncar, Torry yelled obscenities and protests while continuing to\\nfilm with his cell phone camera. At one point, Goss ap-\\nproached the car and told him to be quiet, to which Torry re-\\nsponded, “Leave me alone!”\\n Roughly ten minutes into the stop and eight minutes after\\nputting Torry in the squad car, King retrieved Torry and\\nwalked him back to his own car. Torry asked if he was under\\narrest, to which King answered, “If you were under arrest,\\nyou’d be in handcuffs.” Torry got in his car, and King re-\\nturned his license and registration. Shortly after, one of the\\nofficers said to Goss that “you don’t want anything to do with\\nhim,” and—in response to an unintelligible reply—said,\\n\\f6 No. 18-1935\\n\\n“Yeah, c’mon, jump in the car … yeah we’ll give you a ride\\nhome.” Goss testified that the officers had told him to get in\\ntheir car to return to his disabled car.\\n Free to leave, Torry and Roberts pulled back onto West\\nPolk Street. Torry continued his video recording, narrating\\nthat the officers were driving behind his car. Goss, riding in\\nthe back seat of Leja and Raether’s car, testified that those of-\\nficers debated pulling Torry over again “to mess with him.”\\nBut the officers dropped Goss off at his car and nothing else\\nhappened.\\n One year later, Torry, Goss, and Roberts sued the three\\nofficers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the officers\\nlacked reasonable suspicion to initiate the Terry stop, and that\\neven if the stop was justified, its scope transformed it into a\\nde facto arrest without probable cause.3 By the time the\\nplaintiffs filed suit, none of the officers could recall the stop.\\nNor could King recall any details about the shooting. It was\\nundisputed, though, that the shooting occurred while King\\nwas on duty in that area as a school sergeant, and the police\\nreport detailing the investigation’s chronology reflected that\\nKing responded as an assist vehicle to the shooting, drove\\naround the corner to the victim’s residence a few minutes\\nlater, and continued to assist until 9:49 a.m., when the report\\nnotes him as “clear.” During the hour or so that King was on\\nthe shot call, three suspect descriptions were transmitted to\\ninvestigators: one that identified the suspects’ car as a newer-\\nmodel grey Nissan with three black male occupants, a second\\n\\n\\n 3 The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed other claims that they had as-\\nserted against the officers.\\n\\fNo. 18-1935 7\\n\\nthat was almost identical to the first but specified that the\\nNissan was an SUV,4 and a third that identified the shooter as\\na medium-complected black male wearing a white t-shirt and\\ndriving a grey Trailblazer.\\n Based on that report and his review of Torry’s video, King\\ntestified by affidavit that the dispatches would have alerted\\nhim that the suspects were three black men driving a grey car,\\nand, as the video reflected, that he told Torry—who was driv-\\ning a grey car with three black male occupants—that he had\\nstopped him because of the shooting. The plaintiffs and the\\ndefendants filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and\\nthe district court granted summary judgment to the defend-\\nants.\\n II.\\n The primary theme of the plaintiffs’ argument is that prov-\\ning reasonable suspicion for the stop requires the officers to\\nhave at least some independent memory of what they knew\\nat the time. The plaintiffs particularly object, therefore, to the\\ndistrict court’s reliance on indirect evidence—the police re-\\nport and King’s affidavit—to conclude that the officers had\\nreasonable suspicion to pull them over. They offer four rea-\\nsons why the district court was wrong to consider this evi-\\ndence: first, the officers submitted it in response to the plain-\\ntiffs’ motion for summary judgment rather than in support of\\n\\n\\n 4 This second entry lacks a timestamp and so may have been received\\nlater. But because identifying the car as an SUV weakens the officers’ ar-\\ngument for reasonable suspicion and because we must take the facts in the\\nlight most favorable to the plaintiffs, we presume that this description had\\nbeen received by the time of the stop. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zen-\\nith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).\\n\\f8 No. 18-1935\\n\\ntheir own motion; second, King’s affidavit was a sham be-\\ncause it contradicted his prior testimony; third, the police re-\\nport was hearsay; and fourth, King’s lack of memory pre-\\ncludes him from relying on the collective knowledge doctrine.\\nNone of these arguments succeeds.\\n To begin with, it doesn’t matter that the officers submitted\\nthe report and affidavit in their response to the plaintiffs’ mo-\\ntion for summary judgment rather than in support of their\\nown motion. In adjudicating a motion for summary judg-\\nment, “[a] court need consider only the cited materials, but it\\nmay consider other materials in the record.” FED. R. CIV. P.\\n56(c)(3). The court was therefore free to consider evidence\\nsubmitted in response to one motion when it decided the\\nother. Indeed, it would have been odd for the court to ignore\\nthe report and affidavit, because they were obviously relevant\\nto the defendants’ cross-motion on the very same issues. See\\nLas Vegas Sands, LLC v. Nehme, 632 F.3d 526, 532 (9th Cir. 2011)\\n(“Where the parties file cross-motions for summary judg-\\nment, the court must consider each party’s evidence, regard-\\nless under which motion the evidence is offered.”). The plain-\\ntiffs had an opportunity to—and did—address the evidence\\nin their own brief, and they don’t suggest that they were in-\\nappropriately prejudiced by its consideration. Cf. Simpson v.\\nMerchs. Recovery Bureau, Inc., 171 F.3d 546, 551 (7th Cir. 1999)\\n(explaining that summary judgment may be granted sua\\nsponte “so long as the opposing party has had an adequate\\nopportunity to respond.” (citation omitted)). This argument\\nfor excluding the report and affidavit fails.\\n The plaintiffs’ next argument—that the court should have\\nexcluded King’s affidavit as a sham—fares no better. Accord-\\ning to the plaintiffs, King made several admissions during\\n\\fNo. 18-1935 9\\n\\ndiscovery that effectively conceded his liability, and his affi-\\ndavit contradicts these admissions because it explains why\\nKing had reasonable suspicion for the stop. Thus, they insist,\\nthe court was obliged to exclude the affidavit as a sham. See\\nBank of Illinois v. Allied Signal Safety Restraint Sys., 75 F.3d 1162,\\n1168 (7th Cir. 1996) (“[P]arties cannot thwart the purposes of\\nRule 56 by creating ‘sham’ issues of fact with affidavits that\\ncontradict their prior depositions.”). The premise of the plain-\\ntiffs’ argument is flawed, however, because King’s affidavit\\ndoes not contradict his prior admissions. King never con-\\nceded that he stopped the plaintiffs unlawfully; he stated that\\nhe had no independent memory of the incident. Admitting to\\na lack of memory is a far cry from admitting that the opposing\\nparty’s version of events is correct. See Brown v. County of Cook,\\n661 F.3d 333, 338 (7th Cir. 2011). Rather than contradicting his\\nprior admissions, King’s affidavit explained the newly intro-\\nduced police report and how it bore on the stop. The district\\ncourt did not abuse its “great discretion” by considering\\nKing’s testimony. See Maldonado v. U.S. Bank, 186 F.3d 759, 769\\n(7th Cir. 1999); cf. Bank of Illinois, 75 F.3d at 1172 (approving\\nconsideration of even contradictory affidavits if based on new\\nevidence).\\n The plaintiffs’ next argument—that the police report was\\ninadmissible hearsay—is their most underdeveloped. They\\ninsist that the report is hearsay, but they never articulate why\\nany of the statements within the report was offered as proof\\nof the truth of the matter asserted. See FED. R. EVID. 801(c)(2)\\n(“‘Hearsay’ means a statement that … a party offers in evi-\\ndence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the state-\\nment.”). Their failure to develop this argument is enough to\\ndispense with it. See Mathews v. REV Recreation Grp., Inc., No.\\n18-1982, 2019 WL 3369563, at *3 n.2 (7th Cir. July 26, 2019). We\\n\\f10 No. 18-1935\\n\\nobserve, however, that many of the statements were obvi-\\nously not offered for their truth. For example, the descriptions\\nof the shooters (three black men) and their vehicle (a grey Nis-\\nsan, a grey Trailblazer, or a grey Nissan SUV) were not of-\\nfered to show what the real shooters looked like or what car\\nthey were actually driving. The descriptions were offered to\\nshow that a competent officer aware of that information could\\nconclude that there was reasonable suspicion to stop Torry\\nand his passengers. See Woods v. City of Chicago, 234 F.3d 979,\\n986–87 (7th Cir. 2000) (a statement in a police report is not\\nhearsay if it is offered “to show the effect that the statements\\nhad on the officers” who heard it); id. at 987 (explaining that\\nthe Fourth Amendment analysis does not turn on whether the\\ninformation in the tips turns out to be true). Statements intro-\\nduced to show their effect on the listener, rather than the truth\\nof the matter they assert, are not hearsay. See 4 CHRISTOPHER\\nB. MUELLER & LAIRD C. KIRKPATRICK, FEDERAL EVIDENCE § 8:20\\n(4th ed. 2013).\\n We will assume for the sake of argument that the entries\\nreflecting King’s response to the shooting were offered for\\ntheir truth.5 Even if they were, however, the plaintiffs don’t\\n\\n\\n 5 It is doubtful, though, that even these statements are hearsay. The\\nfact that King was participating in the investigation is implicit in the en-\\ntries describing his response to the shot call, but that is not what the de-\\nclarant was intentionally trying to convey. Assertions often reflect a de-\\nclarant’s underlying assumptions, but only the assertions themselves meet\\nRule 801’s definition of hearsay. See FED. R. EVID. 801(1) (“‘Statement’\\nmeans a person’s oral assertion, written assertion, or nonverbal conduct,\\nif the person intended it as an assertion.” (emphasis added)); see also 4\\nMUELLER & KIRKPATRICK, supra, § 8:24. United States v. Zenni is the classic\\nexample. See 492 F. Supp. 464, 469 (E.D. Ky. 1980) (callers placing bets did\\n\\fNo. 18-1935 11\\n\\ncounter the defendants’ argument that the entire report is ad-\\nmissible under the business records exception. See FED. R.\\nEVID. 803(6). That exception applies if five conditions are met:\\n(1) “the record was made at or near the time by—or from in-\\nformation transmitted by—someone with knowledge”; (2)\\n“the record was kept in the ordinary course of a regularly con-\\nducted activity of a business, organization, occupation, or\\ncalling”; (3) “making the record was a regular practice of that\\nactivity”; (4) “all these conditions are shown by the testimony\\nof a custodian or another qualified witness”; and (5) “the op-\\nponent does not show that the source of the information or\\nthe method or circumstances of preparation indicate a lack of\\ntrustworthiness.” Id. The only factor that the plaintiffs come\\nclose to discussing is the fourth: they seem to argue that King\\nwas not qualified to authenticate the report because he could\\nnot remember receiving the transmissions that it recorded.\\nBut to authenticate a business record, a qualified witness\\n“need not be in control of or have individual knowledge of\\nthe particular [] records”; he “need only be familiar with the\\n[] recordkeeping practices.” Thanongsinh v. Bd. of Educ., 462\\nF.3d 762, 777 (7th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). In his affidavit,\\nKing testified that each of the conditions was satisfied. Plain-\\ntiffs have not argued otherwise. Because the report is a busi-\\nness record, all of its statements are admissible for their truth.6\\n\\n\\nnot intend to assert that they were telephoning a betting establishment, so\\nthe statements were not hearsay when offered for that purpose).\\n 6 It is true that any statements in the report made by those outside of\\nthe police force constitute “hearsay within hearsay” and would need to be\\nthemselves justified by a hearsay exception. The plaintiffs do not identify\\nany such statements in the report, so they have forfeited any argument for\\n\\f12 No. 18-1935\\n\\n The plaintiffs point out that while the police report shows\\nthat descriptions of the suspects were transmitted to investi-\\ngators, it does not expressly note whether the investigators\\nreceived them. The district court properly concluded, though,\\nthat we can impute that knowledge to King via the collective\\nknowledge doctrine. “[W]hen officers are in communication\\nwith each other while working together at a scene, their\\nknowledge may be mutually imputed even when there is no\\nexpress testimony that the specific or detailed information\\ncreating the justification for a stop was conveyed.” United\\nStates v. Nafzger, 974 F.2d 906, 911 (7th Cir. 1992); see also\\nUnited States v. Sawyer, 224 F.3d 675, 680 (7th Cir. 2000). That\\nis true even when the communication is by dispatch rather\\nthan face-to-face. See Sawyer, 224 F.3d at 680. King’s presence\\nat and involvement in the shooting investigation—bolstered\\nby his testimony that suspect descriptions are typically shared\\nwith officers at the scene and through the Office of Emergency\\nManagement and Communications—are enough to attribute\\nthe knowledge to him.\\n Because the report establishes that King was aware of both\\nthe shooting and the suspect descriptions, the court appropri-\\nately treated those as undisputed facts when considering\\nwhether reasonable suspicion for the Terry stop existed.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\ntheir exclusion. For the sake of completeness, however, we note that the\\nmost obvious candidates are the witnesses’ descriptions of the shooters.\\nAs we have already explained, they were not offered for their truth. Even\\nif they had been, though, they would have been admissible as present-\\nsense impressions. See FED. R. EVID. 803(1) (defining a present sense im-\\npression as “[a] statement describing or explaining an event or condition,\\nmade while or immediately after the declarant perceived it”).\\n\\fNo. 18-1935 13\\n\\n III.\\n That brings us to the reasonableness of the stop. The plain-\\ntiffs argue that it violated the Fourth Amendment, given that\\nthe shooting had occurred several hours earlier and that\\nTorry’s car was a different model than the one identified in\\nthe department’s transmissions to investigators. The defend-\\nants contend that the stop was lawful and that they are in any\\nevent entitled to qualified immunity.\\n Qualified immunity protects government officials from li-\\nability for civil damages as long as their actions do not violate\\n“clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which\\na reasonable person would have known.” Figgs v. Dawson, 829\\nF.3d 895, 905 (7th Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). Thus, to win,\\nthe plaintiffs must show not only that the stop was unlawful,\\nbut also that the unlawfulness of the stop was clearly estab-\\nlished at the time that it occurred. Because the plaintiffs can-\\nnot make the latter showing, we need not consider whether\\nthe stop violated the Fourth Amendment. See Pearson v. Calla-\\nhan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 (2009) (“[C]ourts of appeals should be\\npermitted to exercise their sound discretion in deciding which\\nof the two prongs of the qualified immunity analysis should\\nbe addressed first ….”).\\n The “demanding standard” that the law be “clearly estab-\\nlished” for liability to attach “protects ‘all but the plainly in-\\ncompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.’” District\\nof Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577, 589 (2018) (quoting Malley\\nv. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986)). For the law to be “clearly\\nestablished,” existing precedent must have placed the unlaw-\\nfulness of the stop “beyond debate.” Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563\\nU.S. 731, 741 (2011). It is usually necessary to identify an in-\\nstance in which “an officer acting under similar circumstances\\n\\f14 No. 18-1935\\n\\n… was held to have violated the Fourth Amendment,” though\\nin the “rare ‘obvious case’” the violation may be sufficiently\\nclear “even though existing precedent does not address simi-\\nlar circumstances.” Wesby, 138 S. Ct. at 590 (alteration in orig-\\ninal) (citations omitted).\\n The general rule established by Terry v. Ohio is that officers\\nmay conduct a brief investigatory stop if they reasonably sus-\\npect that an individual has committed or is about to commit\\na crime. 392 U.S. 1, 20–22 (1968). Reasonable suspicion is a\\nlower standard than probable cause. See Navarette v. California,\\n572 U.S. 393, 397 (2014). It’s a “commonsense, nontechnical\\n[standard] that deal[s] with ‘the factual and practical consid-\\nerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent\\nmen, not legal technicians, act.’” Ornelas v. United States, 517\\nU.S. 690, 695 (1996) (citation omitted). It is judged holistically,\\nbased on “the sum of all of the information known to officers\\nat the time of the stop.” See Matz v. Klotka, 769 F.3d 517, 523\\n(7th Cir. 2014).\\n The plaintiffs do not contend that this is the rare case in\\nwhich the facts establish a blatant violation of Terry’s rule\\neven though there is no case on point. See Wesby, 138 S. Ct. at\\n590. Instead, they identify two cases that they say clearly es-\\ntablished the illegality of this Terry stop: Gentry v. Sevier, 597\\nF.3d 838 (7th Cir. 2010), and United States v. Packer, 15 F.3d 654\\n(7th Cir. 1994). In Gentry, a police officer stopped someone af-\\nter hearing a dispatch report that a suspicious person was\\npushing a wheelbarrow. 597 F.3d at 842–43. In Packer, police\\nofficers stopped a vehicle’s occupants based on a citizen’s re-\\nport that a suspicious vehicle was parked along the street at\\none o’clock in the morning. 15 F.3d at 658. Neither report pro-\\nvided any facts concerning any crime that the people stopped\\n\\fNo. 18-1935 15\\n\\nwere suspected of committing—they were stopped just be-\\ncause they looked suspicious. In both cases, therefore, the of-\\nficers “lacked the minimal detail of information that would\\npoint to any arguably particularized suspicion of criminal\\nconduct.” Green v. Newport, 868 F.3d 629, 634 (7th Cir. 2017)\\n(citation omitted).\\n Neither Gentry nor Packer speaks to a situation like this\\none, where the plaintiffs partially matched the description of\\nsuspects involved in a drive-by shooting. When the officers in\\nthis case stopped the plaintiffs, they knew that three black\\nmen in a grey car were suspected of committing a nearby\\nshooting earlier that day. The plaintiffs matched this descrip-\\ntion in number, race, and car color. Cf. United States v. Lenoir,\\n318 F.3d 725, 729 (7th Cir. 2003) (“[P]olice observation of an\\nindividual, fitting a police dispatch description of a person in-\\nvolved in a disturbance, near in time and geographic location\\nto the disturbance establishes a reasonable suspicion that the\\nindividual is the subject of the dispatch.”). The plaintiffs ar-\\ngue that the reasonableness of the officers’ suspicion was nev-\\nertheless undermined in two ways: first, the descriptions that\\nthe officers relied on identified the suspects’ vehicle as an\\nSUV, but the plaintiffs were in a sedan; and second, the shoot-\\ning occurred too far away (half a mile) and too long before\\n(four hours) to justify the stop. But while these discrepancies\\nmay weigh against the officers’ suspicion, they don’t clearly\\novercome it.\\n We’ll begin with the variation between Torry’s car and the\\ndescriptions of the suspects’ car. Under our precedent, an im-\\nperfect match between a suspect and a description does not\\nnecessarily make an officer’s suspicion unreasonable. See, e.g.,\\n\\f16 No. 18-1935\\n\\nD.Z. v. Buell, 796 F.3d 749, 754 (7th Cir. 2015) (finding reason-\\nable suspicion to stop an individual “who somewhat matched\\nthe description of the suspect”). And the significance of the\\nimperfect match may have been lessened here because there\\nwere multiple reports giving conflicting information about\\nthe suspects’ grey car. One report identified it as a Nissan,\\nwithout giving a model; another identified it as a Nissan SUV;\\nand a third identified it as a Trailblazer (an SUV made by\\nChevrolet). The fact that the reports’ descriptions of the car\\nwere consistent only as to its grey color gave the officers some\\nreason to pay more attention to the color than to the make or\\nmodel. No clearly established law holds that this kind of var-\\niation makes an officer’s suspicion unreasonable under the\\nFourth Amendment.\\n As for the time and place discrepancies, past cases have\\nnot established that they’re enough to defeat reasonable sus-\\npicion. In United States v. Tilmon, for example, we found a stop\\nreasonable based on the “match of a unique automobile with\\na driver fitting the general description of the bank robber,”\\neven though the stop occurred two hours after and fifty miles\\naway from the robbery. 19 F.3d 1221, 1225 (7th Cir. 1994). This\\nstop occurred four hours after but only a half-mile away from\\nthe shooting and within the “safe passage” area surrounding\\nManley High School.\\n Finally, the officers’ suspicion was not based solely on the\\ndescriptions of the suspects. The plaintiffs had also passed by\\nthe same area multiple times, behavior that could suggest that\\nthey were casing it in preparation for further criminal activity\\nrelated to the dispute underlying the shooting. Cf. Green, 868\\nF.3d at 634 (circling an auto parts store’s parking lot multiple\\n\\fNo. 18-1935 17\\n\\ntimes near the close of business contributed to an officer’s rea-\\nsonable suspicion). Taking all of this evidence together, a rea-\\nsonable officer could have concluded that the investigative\\nTerry stop of the plaintiffs comported with the Fourth\\nAmendment. See Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 641\\n(1987).\\n IV.\\n Finally, the plaintiffs argue that even if the stop was ini-\\ntially justified, it exceeded its appropriate bounds and turned\\ninto a de facto arrest. They argue that taking Torry’s identifi-\\ncation and placing him in the back of the squad car was more\\nintrusive than was warranted for the Terry stop, and thus\\ntransformed the encounter into an arrest without probable\\ncause.\\n The district court concluded both that the scope of the stop\\nwas lawful and that the officers were entitled to qualified im-\\nmunity regardless. The plaintiffs challenge only one of those\\nholdings: the lawfulness of the stop. Because they do not chal-\\nlenge the district court’s alternative holding that the defend-\\nants are entitled to qualified immunity, they have forfeited\\nthis argument. See United States v. Giovannetti, 919 F.2d 1223,\\n1230 (7th Cir. 1990) (“A litigant who fails to press a point by\\nsupporting it with pertinent authority, or by showing why it\\nis a good point despite a lack of supporting authority or in the\\nface of contrary authority, forfeits the point.” (emphasis omit-\\nted)). We note, however, that our precedent on the permissi-\\nble scope of a Terry stop would have made this a tough argu-\\nment for the plaintiffs to win. In United States v. Bullock, for\\nexample, we held that a defendant being handcuffed, placed\\nin a squad car, and transported back to a house that he had\\nrecently left didn’t transform a Terry stop into an arrest. See\\n\\f18 No. 18-1935\\n\\n632 F.3d 1004, 1016 (7th Cir. 2011). We specifically noted that\\nbecause the officers suspected that the defendant was selling\\ndrugs—a crime “associated with dangerous and violent be-\\nhavior”—detention in the squad car was a reasonable precau-\\ntion. Id. In the face of decisions like Bullock, the plaintiffs in\\nthis case would have a difficult time showing that detaining a\\ndrive-by shooting suspect in a squad car for approximately\\neight minutes clearly rose to the level of a formal arrest re-\\nquiring probable cause under the law at that time.\\n ***\\n Because the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity,\\nthe judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4422633/\", \"author_raw\": \"BARRETT, Circuit Judge\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"KANNE"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"BARRETT"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"BRENNAN"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645380/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":8,"string":"8"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Marcus D. TORRY, Latrell Q. Goss, and William I. Roberts, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-08-02\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-1935\nMARCUS D. TORRY, LATRELL Q. GOSS,\nand WILLIAM I. ROBERTS,\n Plaintiffs-Appellants,\n\n v.\n\nCITY OF CHICAGO, et al.,\n Defendants-Appellees.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\n No. 1:15-cv-8383 — John Robert Blakey, Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED APRIL 9, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 2, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before KANNE, BARRETT, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\n BARRETT, Circuit Judge. One afternoon in 2014, three Chi-\ncago police officers stopped three black men in a grey sedan\nto investigate a nearby shooting that had happened a few\nhours earlier. When the passengers sued the officers a year\nlater, none of the officers remembered the Terry stop. Lacking\nrecall, they relied on other evidence to show that reasonable\nsuspicion had existed for it. Cell phone footage taken by one\n\f2 No. 18-1935\n\nof the plaintiffs during the encounter depicted Sergeant Rob-\nert King, the officer who initiated the stop, citing the plain-\ntiffs’ suspicious behavior in the area of the shooting as the rea-\nson that he had pulled them over. And a police report showed\nthat dispatches to officers investigating the shooting, includ-\ning King, identified the suspects as three black men in a grey\ncar. The descriptions of the car’s model varied, and none was\nan exact match for the car that the plaintiffs were driving. But\nreasonable suspicion can exist without an exact match, and\nthe district court held that these descriptions were close\nenough to justify the Terry stop. In any event, the court said,\nthe officers were entitled to qualified immunity because the\nstop did not violate clearly established law.\n Before us, the plaintiffs have repeatedly suggested that the\ndefendants’ failure of memory is a concession of liability. In\nother words, they maintain that if a police officer doesn’t re-\nmember a stop now, reasonable suspicion could not have jus-\ntified it at the time. But the Fourth Amendment does not gov-\nern how an officer proves that he had reasonable suspicion for\na Terry stop; he can rely on evidence other than his memory\nto establish what he knew when the stop occurred. The police\nreport demonstrates that King knew that the suspects in the\nshooting had been identified as three black men driving a\ngrey car, and the cell-phone video shows him giving the\nshooting as the reason for the stop. We agree with the district\ncourt that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.\n I.\n On the morning of September 23, 2014, a drive-by shoot-\ning occurred about half a mile from Manley High School,\nwhich is located on West Polk Street in Chicago. Sergeant\nRobert King was on duty that day as a “school sergeant”—an\n\fNo. 18-1935 3\n\nofficer who responds to and investigates violence near\nschools within his beat. A police report detailing the chronol-\nogy of events related to the shooting shows that King re-\nsponded to the shooting and that three descriptions of sus-\npects were received while he was assisting.1 One identified\nthe suspects’ vehicle as a newer-model grey Nissan with three\nblack male occupants. The second was almost identical to the\nfirst but specified that the Nissan was an SUV. The third iden-\ntified the shooter as a medium-complected black male wear-\ning a white t-shirt and driving a grey Trailblazer (a Chevrolet\nSUV).\n Shortly past noon on that same day, Marcus Torry and\nWilliam Roberts picked up Latrell Goss, Torry’s brother, in a\ngrey Ford Fusion sedan. Goss’s car had broken down on West\nPolk Street; Torry and Roberts met him at his car and then\ndrove him west on West Polk to an auto parts store. They\npassed Manley High School as they drove to the store, and\nthey passed it again when they returned the same way. As\nthey went by the school for the second time, they were pulled\nover by three police officers—King, Jacek Leja, and Justin Rae-\nther. Torry captured video of the ensuing encounter on his\ncell phone camera. Like the district court, we draw our de-\n\n\n 1 This report is from the Office of Emergency Management and Com-\nmunications and is called a “Chicago Police Department Event Query Re-\nport.” For simplicity’s sake, we will refer to it as a “police report.” The\nrecord also contains post-dated supplementary reports that expand on the\ninformation contained in the police report. The parties dispute the admis-\nsibility of these supplementary reports, but because they are not necessary\nto show that King knew about the shooting and suspect descriptions, we\ndo not address them.\n\f4 No. 18-1935\n\nscription of the encounter primarily from the video, supple-\nmenting it with other undisputed facts and drawing all infer-\nences in the plaintiffs’ favor.2\n After Torry pulled over, King approached his window\nand asked for his license and registration. Torry asked why\nhe had been stopped, and King replied that “this was about\nyour third pass by this school.” Torry protested that he had\nnot driven by the school three times and handed over his li-\ncense and registration. King told him not to argue; Torry de-\nmanded King’s badge number.\n King told Torry to step out of the car and reached for the\nhandle of the driver’s door, which prompted Torry to ask if\nhe was under arrest. King didn’t directly answer the question\nbut said, “Sir, get out of the car please. Sir, this is a Terry stop,\nI have the right to search the car, get out of the car.” Torry,\nprotesting that he had done nothing wrong, failed to comply\nwith multiple commands that he exit the vehicle. King told\nTorry, “If you don’t get out of the car, I will remove you from\nthe car,” and Torry replied, “I’m gonna remove myself but I\njust don’t want to get—y’all get me, shoot me, or kill me for\nsomething I didn’t do wrong.” King responded, “Yes, sir, ab-\nsolutely; hands up, don’t shoot, there you go.” Neither King\nnor the other officers had a gun out, but Torry feared police\nbrutality.\n Torry testified that when he finally removed his seatbelt,\nKing “just grab[bed] me out of the car.” King ordered Torry\nto “come on out, sir,” as Torry repeatedly exclaimed, “Please\n\n 2 Neither side contests the admissibility of the video, which the plain-\ntiffs and defendants introduced as a joint exhibit in the district court. The\nvideo runs the full length of the stop.\n\fNo. 18-1935 5\n\ndon’t shoot.” King walked Torry to a squad car, saying, “Let’s\ngo back to my car, sir, right over here,” and placed him inside.\nGoss testified that an officer grabbed him out of the car too,\nbut neither Goss nor Roberts were placed in a squad car. After\nthe plaintiffs had been repeatedly ordered to leave the car but\nbefore they had complied, one of the officers shook a can of\nmace, although he never used it.\n After placing Torry in the back of his squad car, King sat\nin the front for a few minutes while he ran Torry’s name\nthrough a warrant check. Torry demanded to know why he\nhad been pulled over, and King explained that Torry had\n“cruised this street here around the school,” which was an\narea of “safe passage” and “the immediate location of a shoot-\ning this morning.” (An area of “safe passage” is a designated\narea where extra precautions are taken to prevent violence\nthat might affect students on their way to and from school.)\nKing then returned to Torry’s car, where the officers talked to\nGoss and Roberts, who testified that the other officers patted\nthem down and searched Goss’s pockets. Still in the squad\ncar, Torry yelled obscenities and protests while continuing to\nfilm with his cell phone camera. At one point, Goss ap-\nproached the car and told him to be quiet, to which Torry re-\nsponded, “Leave me alone!”\n Roughly ten minutes into the stop and eight minutes after\nputting Torry in the squad car, King retrieved Torry and\nwalked him back to his own car. Torry asked if he was under\narrest, to which King answered, “If you were under arrest,\nyou’d be in handcuffs.” Torry got in his car, and King re-\nturned his license and registration. Shortly after, one of the\nofficers said to Goss that “you don’t want anything to do with\nhim,” and—in response to an unintelligible reply—said,\n\f6 No. 18-1935\n\n“Yeah, c’mon, jump in the car … yeah we’ll give you a ride\nhome.” Goss testified that the officers had told him to get in\ntheir car to return to his disabled car.\n Free to leave, Torry and Roberts pulled back onto West\nPolk Street. Torry continued his video recording, narrating\nthat the officers were driving behind his car. Goss, riding in\nthe back seat of Leja and Raether’s car, testified that those of-\nficers debated pulling Torry over again “to mess with him.”\nBut the officers dropped Goss off at his car and nothing else\nhappened.\n One year later, Torry, Goss, and Roberts sued the three\nofficers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the officers\nlacked reasonable suspicion to initiate the Terry stop, and that\neven if the stop was justified, its scope transformed it into a\nde facto arrest without probable cause.3 By the time the\nplaintiffs filed suit, none of the officers could recall the stop.\nNor could King recall any details about the shooting. It was\nundisputed, though, that the shooting occurred while King\nwas on duty in that area as a school sergeant, and the police\nreport detailing the investigation’s chronology reflected that\nKing responded as an assist vehicle to the shooting, drove\naround the corner to the victim’s residence a few minutes\nlater, and continued to assist until 9:49 a.m., when the report\nnotes him as “clear.” During the hour or so that King was on\nthe shot call, three suspect descriptions were transmitted to\ninvestigators: one that identified the suspects’ car as a newer-\nmodel grey Nissan with three black male occupants, a second\n\n\n 3 The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed other claims that they had as-\nserted against the officers.\n\fNo. 18-1935 7\n\nthat was almost identical to the first but specified that the\nNissan was an SUV,4 and a third that identified the shooter as\na medium-complected black male wearing a white t-shirt and\ndriving a grey Trailblazer.\n Based on that report and his review of Torry’s video, King\ntestified by affidavit that the dispatches would have alerted\nhim that the suspects were three black men driving a grey car,\nand, as the video reflected, that he told Torry—who was driv-\ning a grey car with three black male occupants—that he had\nstopped him because of the shooting. The plaintiffs and the\ndefendants filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and\nthe district court granted summary judgment to the defend-\nants.\n II.\n The primary theme of the plaintiffs’ argument is that prov-\ning reasonable suspicion for the stop requires the officers to\nhave at least some independent memory of what they knew\nat the time. The plaintiffs particularly object, therefore, to the\ndistrict court’s reliance on indirect evidence—the police re-\nport and King’s affidavit—to conclude that the officers had\nreasonable suspicion to pull them over. They offer four rea-\nsons why the district court was wrong to consider this evi-\ndence: first, the officers submitted it in response to the plain-\ntiffs’ motion for summary judgment rather than in support of\n\n\n 4 This second entry lacks a timestamp and so may have been received\nlater. But because identifying the car as an SUV weakens the officers’ ar-\ngument for reasonable suspicion and because we must take the facts in the\nlight most favorable to the plaintiffs, we presume that this description had\nbeen received by the time of the stop. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zen-\nith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).\n\f8 No. 18-1935\n\ntheir own motion; second, King’s affidavit was a sham be-\ncause it contradicted his prior testimony; third, the police re-\nport was hearsay; and fourth, King’s lack of memory pre-\ncludes him from relying on the collective knowledge doctrine.\nNone of these arguments succeeds.\n To begin with, it doesn’t matter that the officers submitted\nthe report and affidavit in their response to the plaintiffs’ mo-\ntion for summary judgment rather than in support of their\nown motion. In adjudicating a motion for summary judg-\nment, “[a] court need consider only the cited materials, but it\nmay consider other materials in the record.” FED. R. CIV. P.\n56(c)(3). The court was therefore free to consider evidence\nsubmitted in response to one motion when it decided the\nother. Indeed, it would have been odd for the court to ignore\nthe report and affidavit, because they were obviously relevant\nto the defendants’ cross-motion on the very same issues. See\nLas Vegas Sands, LLC v. Nehme, 632 F.3d 526, 532 (9th Cir. 2011)\n(“Where the parties file cross-motions for summary judg-\nment, the court must consider each party’s evidence, regard-\nless under which motion the evidence is offered.”). The plain-\ntiffs had an opportunity to—and did—address the evidence\nin their own brief, and they don’t suggest that they were in-\nappropriately prejudiced by its consideration. Cf. Simpson v.\nMerchs. Recovery Bureau, Inc., 171 F.3d 546, 551 (7th Cir. 1999)\n(explaining that summary judgment may be granted sua\nsponte “so long as the opposing party has had an adequate\nopportunity to respond.” (citation omitted)). This argument\nfor excluding the report and affidavit fails.\n The plaintiffs’ next argument—that the court should have\nexcluded King’s affidavit as a sham—fares no better. Accord-\ning to the plaintiffs, King made several admissions during\n\fNo. 18-1935 9\n\ndiscovery that effectively conceded his liability, and his affi-\ndavit contradicts these admissions because it explains why\nKing had reasonable suspicion for the stop. Thus, they insist,\nthe court was obliged to exclude the affidavit as a sham. See\nBank of Illinois v. Allied Signal Safety Restraint Sys., 75 F.3d 1162,\n1168 (7th Cir. 1996) (“[P]arties cannot thwart the purposes of\nRule 56 by creating ‘sham’ issues of fact with affidavits that\ncontradict their prior depositions.”). The premise of the plain-\ntiffs’ argument is flawed, however, because King’s affidavit\ndoes not contradict his prior admissions. King never con-\nceded that he stopped the plaintiffs unlawfully; he stated that\nhe had no independent memory of the incident. Admitting to\na lack of memory is a far cry from admitting that the opposing\nparty’s version of events is correct. See Brown v. County of Cook,\n661 F.3d 333, 338 (7th Cir. 2011). Rather than contradicting his\nprior admissions, King’s affidavit explained the newly intro-\nduced police report and how it bore on the stop. The district\ncourt did not abuse its “great discretion” by considering\nKing’s testimony. See Maldonado v. U.S. Bank, 186 F.3d 759, 769\n(7th Cir. 1999); cf. Bank of Illinois, 75 F.3d at 1172 (approving\nconsideration of even contradictory affidavits if based on new\nevidence).\n The plaintiffs’ next argument—that the police report was\ninadmissible hearsay—is their most underdeveloped. They\ninsist that the report is hearsay, but they never articulate why\nany of the statements within the report was offered as proof\nof the truth of the matter asserted. See FED. R. EVID. 801(c)(2)\n(“‘Hearsay’ means a statement that … a party offers in evi-\ndence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the state-\nment.”). Their failure to develop this argument is enough to\ndispense with it. See Mathews v. REV Recreation Grp., Inc., No.\n18-1982, 2019 WL 3369563, at *3 n.2 (7th Cir. July 26, 2019). We\n\f10 No. 18-1935\n\nobserve, however, that many of the statements were obvi-\nously not offered for their truth. For example, the descriptions\nof the shooters (three black men) and their vehicle (a grey Nis-\nsan, a grey Trailblazer, or a grey Nissan SUV) were not of-\nfered to show what the real shooters looked like or what car\nthey were actually driving. The descriptions were offered to\nshow that a competent officer aware of that information could\nconclude that there was reasonable suspicion to stop Torry\nand his passengers. See Woods v. City of Chicago, 234 F.3d 979,\n986–87 (7th Cir. 2000) (a statement in a police report is not\nhearsay if it is offered “to show the effect that the statements\nhad on the officers” who heard it); id. at 987 (explaining that\nthe Fourth Amendment analysis does not turn on whether the\ninformation in the tips turns out to be true). Statements intro-\nduced to show their effect on the listener, rather than the truth\nof the matter they assert, are not hearsay. See 4 CHRISTOPHER\nB. MUELLER & LAIRD C. KIRKPATRICK, FEDERAL EVIDENCE § 8:20\n(4th ed. 2013).\n We will assume for the sake of argument that the entries\nreflecting King’s response to the shooting were offered for\ntheir truth.5 Even if they were, however, the plaintiffs don’t\n\n\n 5 It is doubtful, though, that even these statements are hearsay. The\nfact that King was participating in the investigation is implicit in the en-\ntries describing his response to the shot call, but that is not what the de-\nclarant was intentionally trying to convey. Assertions often reflect a de-\nclarant’s underlying assumptions, but only the assertions themselves meet\nRule 801’s definition of hearsay. See FED. R. EVID. 801(1) (“‘Statement’\nmeans a person’s oral assertion, written assertion, or nonverbal conduct,\nif the person intended it as an assertion.” (emphasis added)); see also 4\nMUELLER & KIRKPATRICK, supra, § 8:24. United States v. Zenni is the classic\nexample. See 492 F. Supp. 464, 469 (E.D. Ky. 1980) (callers placing bets did\n\fNo. 18-1935 11\n\ncounter the defendants’ argument that the entire report is ad-\nmissible under the business records exception. See FED. R.\nEVID. 803(6). That exception applies if five conditions are met:\n(1) “the record was made at or near the time by—or from in-\nformation transmitted by—someone with knowledge”; (2)\n“the record was kept in the ordinary course of a regularly con-\nducted activity of a business, organization, occupation, or\ncalling”; (3) “making the record was a regular practice of that\nactivity”; (4) “all these conditions are shown by the testimony\nof a custodian or another qualified witness”; and (5) “the op-\nponent does not show that the source of the information or\nthe method or circumstances of preparation indicate a lack of\ntrustworthiness.” Id. The only factor that the plaintiffs come\nclose to discussing is the fourth: they seem to argue that King\nwas not qualified to authenticate the report because he could\nnot remember receiving the transmissions that it recorded.\nBut to authenticate a business record, a qualified witness\n“need not be in control of or have individual knowledge of\nthe particular [] records”; he “need only be familiar with the\n[] recordkeeping practices.” Thanongsinh v. Bd. of Educ., 462\nF.3d 762, 777 (7th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). In his affidavit,\nKing testified that each of the conditions was satisfied. Plain-\ntiffs have not argued otherwise. Because the report is a busi-\nness record, all of its statements are admissible for their truth.6\n\n\nnot intend to assert that they were telephoning a betting establishment, so\nthe statements were not hearsay when offered for that purpose).\n 6 It is true that any statements in the report made by those outside of\nthe police force constitute “hearsay within hearsay” and would need to be\nthemselves justified by a hearsay exception. The plaintiffs do not identify\nany such statements in the report, so they have forfeited any argument for\n\f12 No. 18-1935\n\n The plaintiffs point out that while the police report shows\nthat descriptions of the suspects were transmitted to investi-\ngators, it does not expressly note whether the investigators\nreceived them. The district court properly concluded, though,\nthat we can impute that knowledge to King via the collective\nknowledge doctrine. “[W]hen officers are in communication\nwith each other while working together at a scene, their\nknowledge may be mutually imputed even when there is no\nexpress testimony that the specific or detailed information\ncreating the justification for a stop was conveyed.” United\nStates v. Nafzger, 974 F.2d 906, 911 (7th Cir. 1992); see also\nUnited States v. Sawyer, 224 F.3d 675, 680 (7th Cir. 2000). That\nis true even when the communication is by dispatch rather\nthan face-to-face. See Sawyer, 224 F.3d at 680. King’s presence\nat and involvement in the shooting investigation—bolstered\nby his testimony that suspect descriptions are typically shared\nwith officers at the scene and through the Office of Emergency\nManagement and Communications—are enough to attribute\nthe knowledge to him.\n Because the report establishes that King was aware of both\nthe shooting and the suspect descriptions, the court appropri-\nately treated those as undisputed facts when considering\nwhether reasonable suspicion for the Terry stop existed.\n\n\n\n\ntheir exclusion. For the sake of completeness, however, we note that the\nmost obvious candidates are the witnesses’ descriptions of the shooters.\nAs we have already explained, they were not offered for their truth. Even\nif they had been, though, they would have been admissible as present-\nsense impressions. See FED. R. EVID. 803(1) (defining a present sense im-\npression as “[a] statement describing or explaining an event or condition,\nmade while or immediately after the declarant perceived it”).\n\fNo. 18-1935 13\n\n III.\n That brings us to the reasonableness of the stop. The plain-\ntiffs argue that it violated the Fourth Amendment, given that\nthe shooting had occurred several hours earlier and that\nTorry’s car was a different model than the one identified in\nthe department’s transmissions to investigators. The defend-\nants contend that the stop was lawful and that they are in any\nevent entitled to qualified immunity.\n Qualified immunity protects government officials from li-\nability for civil damages as long as their actions do not violate\n“clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which\na reasonable person would have known.” Figgs v. Dawson, 829\nF.3d 895, 905 (7th Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). Thus, to win,\nthe plaintiffs must show not only that the stop was unlawful,\nbut also that the unlawfulness of the stop was clearly estab-\nlished at the time that it occurred. Because the plaintiffs can-\nnot make the latter showing, we need not consider whether\nthe stop violated the Fourth Amendment. See Pearson v. Calla-\nhan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 (2009) (“[C]ourts of appeals should be\npermitted to exercise their sound discretion in deciding which\nof the two prongs of the qualified immunity analysis should\nbe addressed first ….”).\n The “demanding standard” that the law be “clearly estab-\nlished” for liability to attach “protects ‘all but the plainly in-\ncompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.’” District\nof Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577, 589 (2018) (quoting Malley\nv. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986)). For the law to be “clearly\nestablished,” existing precedent must have placed the unlaw-\nfulness of the stop “beyond debate.” Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563\nU.S. 731, 741 (2011). It is usually necessary to identify an in-\nstance in which “an officer acting under similar circumstances\n\f14 No. 18-1935\n\n… was held to have violated the Fourth Amendment,” though\nin the “rare ‘obvious case’” the violation may be sufficiently\nclear “even though existing precedent does not address simi-\nlar circumstances.” Wesby, 138 S. Ct. at 590 (alteration in orig-\ninal) (citations omitted).\n The general rule established by Terry v. Ohio is that officers\nmay conduct a brief investigatory stop if they reasonably sus-\npect that an individual has committed or is about to commit\na crime. 392 U.S. 1, 20–22 (1968). Reasonable suspicion is a\nlower standard than probable cause. See Navarette v. California,\n572 U.S. 393, 397 (2014). It’s a “commonsense, nontechnical\n[standard] that deal[s] with ‘the factual and practical consid-\nerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent\nmen, not legal technicians, act.’” Ornelas v. United States, 517\nU.S. 690, 695 (1996) (citation omitted). It is judged holistically,\nbased on “the sum of all of the information known to officers\nat the time of the stop.” See Matz v. Klotka, 769 F.3d 517, 523\n(7th Cir. 2014).\n The plaintiffs do not contend that this is the rare case in\nwhich the facts establish a blatant violation of Terry’s rule\neven though there is no case on point. See Wesby, 138 S. Ct. at\n590. Instead, they identify two cases that they say clearly es-\ntablished the illegality of this Terry stop: Gentry v. Sevier, 597\nF.3d 838 (7th Cir. 2010), and United States v. Packer, 15 F.3d 654\n(7th Cir. 1994). In Gentry, a police officer stopped someone af-\nter hearing a dispatch report that a suspicious person was\npushing a wheelbarrow. 597 F.3d at 842–43. In Packer, police\nofficers stopped a vehicle’s occupants based on a citizen’s re-\nport that a suspicious vehicle was parked along the street at\none o’clock in the morning. 15 F.3d at 658. Neither report pro-\nvided any facts concerning any crime that the people stopped\n\fNo. 18-1935 15\n\nwere suspected of committing—they were stopped just be-\ncause they looked suspicious. In both cases, therefore, the of-\nficers “lacked the minimal detail of information that would\npoint to any arguably particularized suspicion of criminal\nconduct.” Green v. Newport, 868 F.3d 629, 634 (7th Cir. 2017)\n(citation omitted).\n Neither Gentry nor Packer speaks to a situation like this\none, where the plaintiffs partially matched the description of\nsuspects involved in a drive-by shooting. When the officers in\nthis case stopped the plaintiffs, they knew that three black\nmen in a grey car were suspected of committing a nearby\nshooting earlier that day. The plaintiffs matched this descrip-\ntion in number, race, and car color. Cf. United States v. Lenoir,\n318 F.3d 725, 729 (7th Cir. 2003) (“[P]olice observation of an\nindividual, fitting a police dispatch description of a person in-\nvolved in a disturbance, near in time and geographic location\nto the disturbance establishes a reasonable suspicion that the\nindividual is the subject of the dispatch.”). The plaintiffs ar-\ngue that the reasonableness of the officers’ suspicion was nev-\nertheless undermined in two ways: first, the descriptions that\nthe officers relied on identified the suspects’ vehicle as an\nSUV, but the plaintiffs were in a sedan; and second, the shoot-\ning occurred too far away (half a mile) and too long before\n(four hours) to justify the stop. But while these discrepancies\nmay weigh against the officers’ suspicion, they don’t clearly\novercome it.\n We’ll begin with the variation between Torry’s car and the\ndescriptions of the suspects’ car. Under our precedent, an im-\nperfect match between a suspect and a description does not\nnecessarily make an officer’s suspicion unreasonable. See, e.g.,\n\f16 No. 18-1935\n\nD.Z. v. Buell, 796 F.3d 749, 754 (7th Cir. 2015) (finding reason-\nable suspicion to stop an individual “who somewhat matched\nthe description of the suspect”). And the significance of the\nimperfect match may have been lessened here because there\nwere multiple reports giving conflicting information about\nthe suspects’ grey car. One report identified it as a Nissan,\nwithout giving a model; another identified it as a Nissan SUV;\nand a third identified it as a Trailblazer (an SUV made by\nChevrolet). The fact that the reports’ descriptions of the car\nwere consistent only as to its grey color gave the officers some\nreason to pay more attention to the color than to the make or\nmodel. No clearly established law holds that this kind of var-\niation makes an officer’s suspicion unreasonable under the\nFourth Amendment.\n As for the time and place discrepancies, past cases have\nnot established that they’re enough to defeat reasonable sus-\npicion. In United States v. Tilmon, for example, we found a stop\nreasonable based on the “match of a unique automobile with\na driver fitting the general description of the bank robber,”\neven though the stop occurred two hours after and fifty miles\naway from the robbery. 19 F.3d 1221, 1225 (7th Cir. 1994). This\nstop occurred four hours after but only a half-mile away from\nthe shooting and within the “safe passage” area surrounding\nManley High School.\n Finally, the officers’ suspicion was not based solely on the\ndescriptions of the suspects. The plaintiffs had also passed by\nthe same area multiple times, behavior that could suggest that\nthey were casing it in preparation for further criminal activity\nrelated to the dispute underlying the shooting. Cf. Green, 868\nF.3d at 634 (circling an auto parts store’s parking lot multiple\n\fNo. 18-1935 17\n\ntimes near the close of business contributed to an officer’s rea-\nsonable suspicion). Taking all of this evidence together, a rea-\nsonable officer could have concluded that the investigative\nTerry stop of the plaintiffs comported with the Fourth\nAmendment. See Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 641\n(1987).\n IV.\n Finally, the plaintiffs argue that even if the stop was ini-\ntially justified, it exceeded its appropriate bounds and turned\ninto a de facto arrest. They argue that taking Torry’s identifi-\ncation and placing him in the back of the squad car was more\nintrusive than was warranted for the Terry stop, and thus\ntransformed the encounter into an arrest without probable\ncause.\n The district court concluded both that the scope of the stop\nwas lawful and that the officers were entitled to qualified im-\nmunity regardless. The plaintiffs challenge only one of those\nholdings: the lawfulness of the stop. Because they do not chal-\nlenge the district court’s alternative holding that the defend-\nants are entitled to qualified immunity, they have forfeited\nthis argument. See United States v. Giovannetti, 919 F.2d 1223,\n1230 (7th Cir. 1990) (“A litigant who fails to press a point by\nsupporting it with pertinent authority, or by showing why it\nis a good point despite a lack of supporting authority or in the\nface of contrary authority, forfeits the point.” (emphasis omit-\nted)). We note, however, that our precedent on the permissi-\nble scope of a Terry stop would have made this a tough argu-\nment for the plaintiffs to win. In United States v. Bullock, for\nexample, we held that a defendant being handcuffed, placed\nin a squad car, and transported back to a house that he had\nrecently left didn’t transform a Terry stop into an arrest. See\n\f18 No. 18-1935\n\n632 F.3d 1004, 1016 (7th Cir. 2011). We specifically noted that\nbecause the officers suspected that the defendant was selling\ndrugs—a crime “associated with dangerous and violent be-\nhavior”—detention in the squad car was a reasonable precau-\ntion. Id. In the face of decisions like Bullock, the plaintiffs in\nthis case would have a difficult time showing that detaining a\ndrive-by shooting suspect in a squad car for approximately\neight minutes clearly rose to the level of a formal arrest re-\nquiring probable cause under the law at that time.\n ***\n Because the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity,\nthe judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Marcus D. TORRY, Latrell Q. Goss, and William I. Roberts, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-08-02\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-1935\\nMARCUS D. TORRY, LATRELL Q. GOSS,\\nand WILLIAM I. ROBERTS,\\n Plaintiffs-Appellants,\\n\\n v.\\n\\nCITY OF CHICAGO, et al.,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 1:15-cv-8383 — John Robert Blakey, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED APRIL 9, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 2, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before KANNE, BARRETT, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\\n BARRETT, Circuit Judge. One afternoon in 2014, three Chi-\\ncago police officers stopped three black men in a grey sedan\\nto investigate a nearby shooting that had happened a few\\nhours earlier. When the passengers sued the officers a year\\nlater, none of the officers remembered the Terry stop. Lacking\\nrecall, they relied on other evidence to show that reasonable\\nsuspicion had existed for it. Cell phone footage taken by one\\n\\f2 No. 18-1935\\n\\nof the plaintiffs during the encounter depicted Sergeant Rob-\\nert King, the officer who initiated the stop, citing the plain-\\ntiffs’ suspicious behavior in the area of the shooting as the rea-\\nson that he had pulled them over. And a police report showed\\nthat dispatches to officers investigating the shooting, includ-\\ning King, identified the suspects as three black men in a grey\\ncar. The descriptions of the car’s model varied, and none was\\nan exact match for the car that the plaintiffs were driving. But\\nreasonable suspicion can exist without an exact match, and\\nthe district court held that these descriptions were close\\nenough to justify the Terry stop. In any event, the court said,\\nthe officers were entitled to qualified immunity because the\\nstop did not violate clearly established law.\\n Before us, the plaintiffs have repeatedly suggested that the\\ndefendants’ failure of memory is a concession of liability. In\\nother words, they maintain that if a police officer doesn’t re-\\nmember a stop now, reasonable suspicion could not have jus-\\ntified it at the time. But the Fourth Amendment does not gov-\\nern how an officer proves that he had reasonable suspicion for\\na Terry stop; he can rely on evidence other than his memory\\nto establish what he knew when the stop occurred. The police\\nreport demonstrates that King knew that the suspects in the\\nshooting had been identified as three black men driving a\\ngrey car, and the cell-phone video shows him giving the\\nshooting as the reason for the stop. We agree with the district\\ncourt that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.\\n I.\\n On the morning of September 23, 2014, a drive-by shoot-\\ning occurred about half a mile from Manley High School,\\nwhich is located on West Polk Street in Chicago. Sergeant\\nRobert King was on duty that day as a “school sergeant”—an\\n\\fNo. 18-1935 3\\n\\nofficer who responds to and investigates violence near\\nschools within his beat. A police report detailing the chronol-\\nogy of events related to the shooting shows that King re-\\nsponded to the shooting and that three descriptions of sus-\\npects were received while he was assisting.1 One identified\\nthe suspects’ vehicle as a newer-model grey Nissan with three\\nblack male occupants. The second was almost identical to the\\nfirst but specified that the Nissan was an SUV. The third iden-\\ntified the shooter as a medium-complected black male wear-\\ning a white t-shirt and driving a grey Trailblazer (a Chevrolet\\nSUV).\\n Shortly past noon on that same day, Marcus Torry and\\nWilliam Roberts picked up Latrell Goss, Torry’s brother, in a\\ngrey Ford Fusion sedan. Goss’s car had broken down on West\\nPolk Street; Torry and Roberts met him at his car and then\\ndrove him west on West Polk to an auto parts store. They\\npassed Manley High School as they drove to the store, and\\nthey passed it again when they returned the same way. As\\nthey went by the school for the second time, they were pulled\\nover by three police officers—King, Jacek Leja, and Justin Rae-\\nther. Torry captured video of the ensuing encounter on his\\ncell phone camera. Like the district court, we draw our de-\\n\\n\\n 1 This report is from the Office of Emergency Management and Com-\\nmunications and is called a “Chicago Police Department Event Query Re-\\nport.” For simplicity’s sake, we will refer to it as a “police report.” The\\nrecord also contains post-dated supplementary reports that expand on the\\ninformation contained in the police report. The parties dispute the admis-\\nsibility of these supplementary reports, but because they are not necessary\\nto show that King knew about the shooting and suspect descriptions, we\\ndo not address them.\\n\\f4 No. 18-1935\\n\\nscription of the encounter primarily from the video, supple-\\nmenting it with other undisputed facts and drawing all infer-\\nences in the plaintiffs’ favor.2\\n After Torry pulled over, King approached his window\\nand asked for his license and registration. Torry asked why\\nhe had been stopped, and King replied that “this was about\\nyour third pass by this school.” Torry protested that he had\\nnot driven by the school three times and handed over his li-\\ncense and registration. King told him not to argue; Torry de-\\nmanded King’s badge number.\\n King told Torry to step out of the car and reached for the\\nhandle of the driver’s door, which prompted Torry to ask if\\nhe was under arrest. King didn’t directly answer the question\\nbut said, “Sir, get out of the car please. Sir, this is a Terry stop,\\nI have the right to search the car, get out of the car.” Torry,\\nprotesting that he had done nothing wrong, failed to comply\\nwith multiple commands that he exit the vehicle. King told\\nTorry, “If you don’t get out of the car, I will remove you from\\nthe car,” and Torry replied, “I’m gonna remove myself but I\\njust don’t want to get—y’all get me, shoot me, or kill me for\\nsomething I didn’t do wrong.” King responded, “Yes, sir, ab-\\nsolutely; hands up, don’t shoot, there you go.” Neither King\\nnor the other officers had a gun out, but Torry feared police\\nbrutality.\\n Torry testified that when he finally removed his seatbelt,\\nKing “just grab[bed] me out of the car.” King ordered Torry\\nto “come on out, sir,” as Torry repeatedly exclaimed, “Please\\n\\n 2 Neither side contests the admissibility of the video, which the plain-\\ntiffs and defendants introduced as a joint exhibit in the district court. The\\nvideo runs the full length of the stop.\\n\\fNo. 18-1935 5\\n\\ndon’t shoot.” King walked Torry to a squad car, saying, “Let’s\\ngo back to my car, sir, right over here,” and placed him inside.\\nGoss testified that an officer grabbed him out of the car too,\\nbut neither Goss nor Roberts were placed in a squad car. After\\nthe plaintiffs had been repeatedly ordered to leave the car but\\nbefore they had complied, one of the officers shook a can of\\nmace, although he never used it.\\n After placing Torry in the back of his squad car, King sat\\nin the front for a few minutes while he ran Torry’s name\\nthrough a warrant check. Torry demanded to know why he\\nhad been pulled over, and King explained that Torry had\\n“cruised this street here around the school,” which was an\\narea of “safe passage” and “the immediate location of a shoot-\\ning this morning.” (An area of “safe passage” is a designated\\narea where extra precautions are taken to prevent violence\\nthat might affect students on their way to and from school.)\\nKing then returned to Torry’s car, where the officers talked to\\nGoss and Roberts, who testified that the other officers patted\\nthem down and searched Goss’s pockets. Still in the squad\\ncar, Torry yelled obscenities and protests while continuing to\\nfilm with his cell phone camera. At one point, Goss ap-\\nproached the car and told him to be quiet, to which Torry re-\\nsponded, “Leave me alone!”\\n Roughly ten minutes into the stop and eight minutes after\\nputting Torry in the squad car, King retrieved Torry and\\nwalked him back to his own car. Torry asked if he was under\\narrest, to which King answered, “If you were under arrest,\\nyou’d be in handcuffs.” Torry got in his car, and King re-\\nturned his license and registration. Shortly after, one of the\\nofficers said to Goss that “you don’t want anything to do with\\nhim,” and—in response to an unintelligible reply—said,\\n\\f6 No. 18-1935\\n\\n“Yeah, c’mon, jump in the car … yeah we’ll give you a ride\\nhome.” Goss testified that the officers had told him to get in\\ntheir car to return to his disabled car.\\n Free to leave, Torry and Roberts pulled back onto West\\nPolk Street. Torry continued his video recording, narrating\\nthat the officers were driving behind his car. Goss, riding in\\nthe back seat of Leja and Raether’s car, testified that those of-\\nficers debated pulling Torry over again “to mess with him.”\\nBut the officers dropped Goss off at his car and nothing else\\nhappened.\\n One year later, Torry, Goss, and Roberts sued the three\\nofficers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the officers\\nlacked reasonable suspicion to initiate the Terry stop, and that\\neven if the stop was justified, its scope transformed it into a\\nde facto arrest without probable cause.3 By the time the\\nplaintiffs filed suit, none of the officers could recall the stop.\\nNor could King recall any details about the shooting. It was\\nundisputed, though, that the shooting occurred while King\\nwas on duty in that area as a school sergeant, and the police\\nreport detailing the investigation’s chronology reflected that\\nKing responded as an assist vehicle to the shooting, drove\\naround the corner to the victim’s residence a few minutes\\nlater, and continued to assist until 9:49 a.m., when the report\\nnotes him as “clear.” During the hour or so that King was on\\nthe shot call, three suspect descriptions were transmitted to\\ninvestigators: one that identified the suspects’ car as a newer-\\nmodel grey Nissan with three black male occupants, a second\\n\\n\\n 3 The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed other claims that they had as-\\nserted against the officers.\\n\\fNo. 18-1935 7\\n\\nthat was almost identical to the first but specified that the\\nNissan was an SUV,4 and a third that identified the shooter as\\na medium-complected black male wearing a white t-shirt and\\ndriving a grey Trailblazer.\\n Based on that report and his review of Torry’s video, King\\ntestified by affidavit that the dispatches would have alerted\\nhim that the suspects were three black men driving a grey car,\\nand, as the video reflected, that he told Torry—who was driv-\\ning a grey car with three black male occupants—that he had\\nstopped him because of the shooting. The plaintiffs and the\\ndefendants filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and\\nthe district court granted summary judgment to the defend-\\nants.\\n II.\\n The primary theme of the plaintiffs’ argument is that prov-\\ning reasonable suspicion for the stop requires the officers to\\nhave at least some independent memory of what they knew\\nat the time. The plaintiffs particularly object, therefore, to the\\ndistrict court’s reliance on indirect evidence—the police re-\\nport and King’s affidavit—to conclude that the officers had\\nreasonable suspicion to pull them over. They offer four rea-\\nsons why the district court was wrong to consider this evi-\\ndence: first, the officers submitted it in response to the plain-\\ntiffs’ motion for summary judgment rather than in support of\\n\\n\\n 4 This second entry lacks a timestamp and so may have been received\\nlater. But because identifying the car as an SUV weakens the officers’ ar-\\ngument for reasonable suspicion and because we must take the facts in the\\nlight most favorable to the plaintiffs, we presume that this description had\\nbeen received by the time of the stop. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zen-\\nith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).\\n\\f8 No. 18-1935\\n\\ntheir own motion; second, King’s affidavit was a sham be-\\ncause it contradicted his prior testimony; third, the police re-\\nport was hearsay; and fourth, King’s lack of memory pre-\\ncludes him from relying on the collective knowledge doctrine.\\nNone of these arguments succeeds.\\n To begin with, it doesn’t matter that the officers submitted\\nthe report and affidavit in their response to the plaintiffs’ mo-\\ntion for summary judgment rather than in support of their\\nown motion. In adjudicating a motion for summary judg-\\nment, “[a] court need consider only the cited materials, but it\\nmay consider other materials in the record.” FED. R. CIV. P.\\n56(c)(3). The court was therefore free to consider evidence\\nsubmitted in response to one motion when it decided the\\nother. Indeed, it would have been odd for the court to ignore\\nthe report and affidavit, because they were obviously relevant\\nto the defendants’ cross-motion on the very same issues. See\\nLas Vegas Sands, LLC v. Nehme, 632 F.3d 526, 532 (9th Cir. 2011)\\n(“Where the parties file cross-motions for summary judg-\\nment, the court must consider each party’s evidence, regard-\\nless under which motion the evidence is offered.”). The plain-\\ntiffs had an opportunity to—and did—address the evidence\\nin their own brief, and they don’t suggest that they were in-\\nappropriately prejudiced by its consideration. Cf. Simpson v.\\nMerchs. Recovery Bureau, Inc., 171 F.3d 546, 551 (7th Cir. 1999)\\n(explaining that summary judgment may be granted sua\\nsponte “so long as the opposing party has had an adequate\\nopportunity to respond.” (citation omitted)). This argument\\nfor excluding the report and affidavit fails.\\n The plaintiffs’ next argument—that the court should have\\nexcluded King’s affidavit as a sham—fares no better. Accord-\\ning to the plaintiffs, King made several admissions during\\n\\fNo. 18-1935 9\\n\\ndiscovery that effectively conceded his liability, and his affi-\\ndavit contradicts these admissions because it explains why\\nKing had reasonable suspicion for the stop. Thus, they insist,\\nthe court was obliged to exclude the affidavit as a sham. See\\nBank of Illinois v. Allied Signal Safety Restraint Sys., 75 F.3d 1162,\\n1168 (7th Cir. 1996) (“[P]arties cannot thwart the purposes of\\nRule 56 by creating ‘sham’ issues of fact with affidavits that\\ncontradict their prior depositions.”). The premise of the plain-\\ntiffs’ argument is flawed, however, because King’s affidavit\\ndoes not contradict his prior admissions. King never con-\\nceded that he stopped the plaintiffs unlawfully; he stated that\\nhe had no independent memory of the incident. Admitting to\\na lack of memory is a far cry from admitting that the opposing\\nparty’s version of events is correct. See Brown v. County of Cook,\\n661 F.3d 333, 338 (7th Cir. 2011). Rather than contradicting his\\nprior admissions, King’s affidavit explained the newly intro-\\nduced police report and how it bore on the stop. The district\\ncourt did not abuse its “great discretion” by considering\\nKing’s testimony. See Maldonado v. U.S. Bank, 186 F.3d 759, 769\\n(7th Cir. 1999); cf. Bank of Illinois, 75 F.3d at 1172 (approving\\nconsideration of even contradictory affidavits if based on new\\nevidence).\\n The plaintiffs’ next argument—that the police report was\\ninadmissible hearsay—is their most underdeveloped. They\\ninsist that the report is hearsay, but they never articulate why\\nany of the statements within the report was offered as proof\\nof the truth of the matter asserted. See FED. R. EVID. 801(c)(2)\\n(“‘Hearsay’ means a statement that … a party offers in evi-\\ndence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the state-\\nment.”). Their failure to develop this argument is enough to\\ndispense with it. See Mathews v. REV Recreation Grp., Inc., No.\\n18-1982, 2019 WL 3369563, at *3 n.2 (7th Cir. July 26, 2019). We\\n\\f10 No. 18-1935\\n\\nobserve, however, that many of the statements were obvi-\\nously not offered for their truth. For example, the descriptions\\nof the shooters (three black men) and their vehicle (a grey Nis-\\nsan, a grey Trailblazer, or a grey Nissan SUV) were not of-\\nfered to show what the real shooters looked like or what car\\nthey were actually driving. The descriptions were offered to\\nshow that a competent officer aware of that information could\\nconclude that there was reasonable suspicion to stop Torry\\nand his passengers. See Woods v. City of Chicago, 234 F.3d 979,\\n986–87 (7th Cir. 2000) (a statement in a police report is not\\nhearsay if it is offered “to show the effect that the statements\\nhad on the officers” who heard it); id. at 987 (explaining that\\nthe Fourth Amendment analysis does not turn on whether the\\ninformation in the tips turns out to be true). Statements intro-\\nduced to show their effect on the listener, rather than the truth\\nof the matter they assert, are not hearsay. See 4 CHRISTOPHER\\nB. MUELLER & LAIRD C. KIRKPATRICK, FEDERAL EVIDENCE § 8:20\\n(4th ed. 2013).\\n We will assume for the sake of argument that the entries\\nreflecting King’s response to the shooting were offered for\\ntheir truth.5 Even if they were, however, the plaintiffs don’t\\n\\n\\n 5 It is doubtful, though, that even these statements are hearsay. The\\nfact that King was participating in the investigation is implicit in the en-\\ntries describing his response to the shot call, but that is not what the de-\\nclarant was intentionally trying to convey. Assertions often reflect a de-\\nclarant’s underlying assumptions, but only the assertions themselves meet\\nRule 801’s definition of hearsay. See FED. R. EVID. 801(1) (“‘Statement’\\nmeans a person’s oral assertion, written assertion, or nonverbal conduct,\\nif the person intended it as an assertion.” (emphasis added)); see also 4\\nMUELLER & KIRKPATRICK, supra, § 8:24. United States v. Zenni is the classic\\nexample. See 492 F. Supp. 464, 469 (E.D. Ky. 1980) (callers placing bets did\\n\\fNo. 18-1935 11\\n\\ncounter the defendants’ argument that the entire report is ad-\\nmissible under the business records exception. See FED. R.\\nEVID. 803(6). That exception applies if five conditions are met:\\n(1) “the record was made at or near the time by—or from in-\\nformation transmitted by—someone with knowledge”; (2)\\n“the record was kept in the ordinary course of a regularly con-\\nducted activity of a business, organization, occupation, or\\ncalling”; (3) “making the record was a regular practice of that\\nactivity”; (4) “all these conditions are shown by the testimony\\nof a custodian or another qualified witness”; and (5) “the op-\\nponent does not show that the source of the information or\\nthe method or circumstances of preparation indicate a lack of\\ntrustworthiness.” Id. The only factor that the plaintiffs come\\nclose to discussing is the fourth: they seem to argue that King\\nwas not qualified to authenticate the report because he could\\nnot remember receiving the transmissions that it recorded.\\nBut to authenticate a business record, a qualified witness\\n“need not be in control of or have individual knowledge of\\nthe particular [] records”; he “need only be familiar with the\\n[] recordkeeping practices.” Thanongsinh v. Bd. of Educ., 462\\nF.3d 762, 777 (7th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). In his affidavit,\\nKing testified that each of the conditions was satisfied. Plain-\\ntiffs have not argued otherwise. Because the report is a busi-\\nness record, all of its statements are admissible for their truth.6\\n\\n\\nnot intend to assert that they were telephoning a betting establishment, so\\nthe statements were not hearsay when offered for that purpose).\\n 6 It is true that any statements in the report made by those outside of\\nthe police force constitute “hearsay within hearsay” and would need to be\\nthemselves justified by a hearsay exception. The plaintiffs do not identify\\nany such statements in the report, so they have forfeited any argument for\\n\\f12 No. 18-1935\\n\\n The plaintiffs point out that while the police report shows\\nthat descriptions of the suspects were transmitted to investi-\\ngators, it does not expressly note whether the investigators\\nreceived them. The district court properly concluded, though,\\nthat we can impute that knowledge to King via the collective\\nknowledge doctrine. “[W]hen officers are in communication\\nwith each other while working together at a scene, their\\nknowledge may be mutually imputed even when there is no\\nexpress testimony that the specific or detailed information\\ncreating the justification for a stop was conveyed.” United\\nStates v. Nafzger, 974 F.2d 906, 911 (7th Cir. 1992); see also\\nUnited States v. Sawyer, 224 F.3d 675, 680 (7th Cir. 2000). That\\nis true even when the communication is by dispatch rather\\nthan face-to-face. See Sawyer, 224 F.3d at 680. King’s presence\\nat and involvement in the shooting investigation—bolstered\\nby his testimony that suspect descriptions are typically shared\\nwith officers at the scene and through the Office of Emergency\\nManagement and Communications—are enough to attribute\\nthe knowledge to him.\\n Because the report establishes that King was aware of both\\nthe shooting and the suspect descriptions, the court appropri-\\nately treated those as undisputed facts when considering\\nwhether reasonable suspicion for the Terry stop existed.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\ntheir exclusion. For the sake of completeness, however, we note that the\\nmost obvious candidates are the witnesses’ descriptions of the shooters.\\nAs we have already explained, they were not offered for their truth. Even\\nif they had been, though, they would have been admissible as present-\\nsense impressions. See FED. R. EVID. 803(1) (defining a present sense im-\\npression as “[a] statement describing or explaining an event or condition,\\nmade while or immediately after the declarant perceived it”).\\n\\fNo. 18-1935 13\\n\\n III.\\n That brings us to the reasonableness of the stop. The plain-\\ntiffs argue that it violated the Fourth Amendment, given that\\nthe shooting had occurred several hours earlier and that\\nTorry’s car was a different model than the one identified in\\nthe department’s transmissions to investigators. The defend-\\nants contend that the stop was lawful and that they are in any\\nevent entitled to qualified immunity.\\n Qualified immunity protects government officials from li-\\nability for civil damages as long as their actions do not violate\\n“clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which\\na reasonable person would have known.” Figgs v. Dawson, 829\\nF.3d 895, 905 (7th Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). Thus, to win,\\nthe plaintiffs must show not only that the stop was unlawful,\\nbut also that the unlawfulness of the stop was clearly estab-\\nlished at the time that it occurred. Because the plaintiffs can-\\nnot make the latter showing, we need not consider whether\\nthe stop violated the Fourth Amendment. See Pearson v. Calla-\\nhan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 (2009) (“[C]ourts of appeals should be\\npermitted to exercise their sound discretion in deciding which\\nof the two prongs of the qualified immunity analysis should\\nbe addressed first ….”).\\n The “demanding standard” that the law be “clearly estab-\\nlished” for liability to attach “protects ‘all but the plainly in-\\ncompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.’” District\\nof Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577, 589 (2018) (quoting Malley\\nv. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986)). For the law to be “clearly\\nestablished,” existing precedent must have placed the unlaw-\\nfulness of the stop “beyond debate.” Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563\\nU.S. 731, 741 (2011). It is usually necessary to identify an in-\\nstance in which “an officer acting under similar circumstances\\n\\f14 No. 18-1935\\n\\n… was held to have violated the Fourth Amendment,” though\\nin the “rare ‘obvious case’” the violation may be sufficiently\\nclear “even though existing precedent does not address simi-\\nlar circumstances.” Wesby, 138 S. Ct. at 590 (alteration in orig-\\ninal) (citations omitted).\\n The general rule established by Terry v. Ohio is that officers\\nmay conduct a brief investigatory stop if they reasonably sus-\\npect that an individual has committed or is about to commit\\na crime. 392 U.S. 1, 20–22 (1968). Reasonable suspicion is a\\nlower standard than probable cause. See Navarette v. California,\\n572 U.S. 393, 397 (2014). It’s a “commonsense, nontechnical\\n[standard] that deal[s] with ‘the factual and practical consid-\\nerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent\\nmen, not legal technicians, act.’” Ornelas v. United States, 517\\nU.S. 690, 695 (1996) (citation omitted). It is judged holistically,\\nbased on “the sum of all of the information known to officers\\nat the time of the stop.” See Matz v. Klotka, 769 F.3d 517, 523\\n(7th Cir. 2014).\\n The plaintiffs do not contend that this is the rare case in\\nwhich the facts establish a blatant violation of Terry’s rule\\neven though there is no case on point. See Wesby, 138 S. Ct. at\\n590. Instead, they identify two cases that they say clearly es-\\ntablished the illegality of this Terry stop: Gentry v. Sevier, 597\\nF.3d 838 (7th Cir. 2010), and United States v. Packer, 15 F.3d 654\\n(7th Cir. 1994). In Gentry, a police officer stopped someone af-\\nter hearing a dispatch report that a suspicious person was\\npushing a wheelbarrow. 597 F.3d at 842–43. In Packer, police\\nofficers stopped a vehicle’s occupants based on a citizen’s re-\\nport that a suspicious vehicle was parked along the street at\\none o’clock in the morning. 15 F.3d at 658. Neither report pro-\\nvided any facts concerning any crime that the people stopped\\n\\fNo. 18-1935 15\\n\\nwere suspected of committing—they were stopped just be-\\ncause they looked suspicious. In both cases, therefore, the of-\\nficers “lacked the minimal detail of information that would\\npoint to any arguably particularized suspicion of criminal\\nconduct.” Green v. Newport, 868 F.3d 629, 634 (7th Cir. 2017)\\n(citation omitted).\\n Neither Gentry nor Packer speaks to a situation like this\\none, where the plaintiffs partially matched the description of\\nsuspects involved in a drive-by shooting. When the officers in\\nthis case stopped the plaintiffs, they knew that three black\\nmen in a grey car were suspected of committing a nearby\\nshooting earlier that day. The plaintiffs matched this descrip-\\ntion in number, race, and car color. Cf. United States v. Lenoir,\\n318 F.3d 725, 729 (7th Cir. 2003) (“[P]olice observation of an\\nindividual, fitting a police dispatch description of a person in-\\nvolved in a disturbance, near in time and geographic location\\nto the disturbance establishes a reasonable suspicion that the\\nindividual is the subject of the dispatch.”). The plaintiffs ar-\\ngue that the reasonableness of the officers’ suspicion was nev-\\nertheless undermined in two ways: first, the descriptions that\\nthe officers relied on identified the suspects’ vehicle as an\\nSUV, but the plaintiffs were in a sedan; and second, the shoot-\\ning occurred too far away (half a mile) and too long before\\n(four hours) to justify the stop. But while these discrepancies\\nmay weigh against the officers’ suspicion, they don’t clearly\\novercome it.\\n We’ll begin with the variation between Torry’s car and the\\ndescriptions of the suspects’ car. Under our precedent, an im-\\nperfect match between a suspect and a description does not\\nnecessarily make an officer’s suspicion unreasonable. See, e.g.,\\n\\f16 No. 18-1935\\n\\nD.Z. v. Buell, 796 F.3d 749, 754 (7th Cir. 2015) (finding reason-\\nable suspicion to stop an individual “who somewhat matched\\nthe description of the suspect”). And the significance of the\\nimperfect match may have been lessened here because there\\nwere multiple reports giving conflicting information about\\nthe suspects’ grey car. One report identified it as a Nissan,\\nwithout giving a model; another identified it as a Nissan SUV;\\nand a third identified it as a Trailblazer (an SUV made by\\nChevrolet). The fact that the reports’ descriptions of the car\\nwere consistent only as to its grey color gave the officers some\\nreason to pay more attention to the color than to the make or\\nmodel. No clearly established law holds that this kind of var-\\niation makes an officer’s suspicion unreasonable under the\\nFourth Amendment.\\n As for the time and place discrepancies, past cases have\\nnot established that they’re enough to defeat reasonable sus-\\npicion. In United States v. Tilmon, for example, we found a stop\\nreasonable based on the “match of a unique automobile with\\na driver fitting the general description of the bank robber,”\\neven though the stop occurred two hours after and fifty miles\\naway from the robbery. 19 F.3d 1221, 1225 (7th Cir. 1994). This\\nstop occurred four hours after but only a half-mile away from\\nthe shooting and within the “safe passage” area surrounding\\nManley High School.\\n Finally, the officers’ suspicion was not based solely on the\\ndescriptions of the suspects. The plaintiffs had also passed by\\nthe same area multiple times, behavior that could suggest that\\nthey were casing it in preparation for further criminal activity\\nrelated to the dispute underlying the shooting. Cf. Green, 868\\nF.3d at 634 (circling an auto parts store’s parking lot multiple\\n\\fNo. 18-1935 17\\n\\ntimes near the close of business contributed to an officer’s rea-\\nsonable suspicion). Taking all of this evidence together, a rea-\\nsonable officer could have concluded that the investigative\\nTerry stop of the plaintiffs comported with the Fourth\\nAmendment. See Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 641\\n(1987).\\n IV.\\n Finally, the plaintiffs argue that even if the stop was ini-\\ntially justified, it exceeded its appropriate bounds and turned\\ninto a de facto arrest. They argue that taking Torry’s identifi-\\ncation and placing him in the back of the squad car was more\\nintrusive than was warranted for the Terry stop, and thus\\ntransformed the encounter into an arrest without probable\\ncause.\\n The district court concluded both that the scope of the stop\\nwas lawful and that the officers were entitled to qualified im-\\nmunity regardless. The plaintiffs challenge only one of those\\nholdings: the lawfulness of the stop. Because they do not chal-\\nlenge the district court’s alternative holding that the defend-\\nants are entitled to qualified immunity, they have forfeited\\nthis argument. See United States v. Giovannetti, 919 F.2d 1223,\\n1230 (7th Cir. 1990) (“A litigant who fails to press a point by\\nsupporting it with pertinent authority, or by showing why it\\nis a good point despite a lack of supporting authority or in the\\nface of contrary authority, forfeits the point.” (emphasis omit-\\nted)). We note, however, that our precedent on the permissi-\\nble scope of a Terry stop would have made this a tough argu-\\nment for the plaintiffs to win. In United States v. Bullock, for\\nexample, we held that a defendant being handcuffed, placed\\nin a squad car, and transported back to a house that he had\\nrecently left didn’t transform a Terry stop into an arrest. See\\n\\f18 No. 18-1935\\n\\n632 F.3d 1004, 1016 (7th Cir. 2011). We specifically noted that\\nbecause the officers suspected that the defendant was selling\\ndrugs—a crime “associated with dangerous and violent be-\\nhavior”—detention in the squad car was a reasonable precau-\\ntion. Id. In the face of decisions like Bullock, the plaintiffs in\\nthis case would have a difficult time showing that detaining a\\ndrive-by shooting suspect in a squad car for approximately\\neight minutes clearly rose to the level of a formal arrest re-\\nquiring probable cause under the law at that time.\\n ***\\n Because the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity,\\nthe judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3780,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4645465,"string":"4,645,465"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"SportFuel, Inc. v. PepsiCo, Inc."},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-08-02"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-3010"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before KANNE, BARRETT, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"Michael Stephen Kanne\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18‐3010\\nSPORTFUEL, INC.,\\n Plaintiff‐Appellant,\\n v.\\n\\nPEPSICO, INC. and\\nTHE GATORADE COMPANY,\\n Defendants‐Appellees.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 16‐cv‐7868 — Matthew F. Kennelly, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED APRIL 9, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 2, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before KANNE, BARRETT, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\\n KANNE, Circuit Judge. SportFuel appeals the district court’s\\ngrant of summary judgment for Gatorade and its parent com‐\\npany, PepsiCo. SportFuel brought this suit against Gatorade\\nalleging violations of its trademark after Gatorade rebranded\\nitself with the slogan, “Gatorade The Sports Fuel Company.”\\nThe district court deemed Gatorade’s slogan a fair use pro‐\\ntected by the Lanham Act. We affirm.\\n\\f2 No. 18‐3010\\n\\n\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n SportFuel is a Chicago‐based sports nutrition and well‐\\nness consulting firm whose clients include several of Chi‐\\ncago’s prominent professional sports teams and their athletes.\\nThe company provides personalized nutrition consulting ser‐\\nvices to professional and amateur athletes, but also sells\\nSportFuel‐branded dietary supplements. SportFuel holds two\\nregistered trademarks for “SportFuel.” It registered the first\\nfor “food nutrition consultation, nutrition counseling, and\\nproviding information about dietary supplements and nutri‐\\ntion.” After several years of use, SportFuel’s trademark be‐\\ncame “incontestable” in 2013 under 15 U.S.C. § 1065. Sport‐\\nFuel also registered a trademark in 2015 for “goods and ser‐\\nvices related to dietary supplements and sports drinks en‐\\nhanced with vitamins.”\\n Gatorade was created in 1965 at the University of Florida\\nCollege of Medicine and public sales began several years later.\\nUndoubtedly, Gatorade is more widely known. It is the offi‐\\ncial sports drink of the NBA, PGA, MLB, MLS, and many\\nother professional and collegiate organizations. Whether by\\ntelevision imagery of victorious athletes drenching their\\ncoaches or teammates with a Gatorade shower from a distinc‐\\ntive cooler, or through aggressive national media marketing\\ncampaigns, Gatorade became a household name.\\n In addition to its traditional sports drinks, Gatorade now\\ncustomizes its sports drink line by selling formulas that are\\ntailored to the nutritional needs of individual professional\\nathletes. The company also sells numerous other sports nutri‐\\ntion products beyond sports drinks. It began to publicly de‐\\nscribe its products as sports fuels in 2013. Seeking to broaden\\nits public image to reflect its expanded variety of products,\\n\\fNo. 18‐3010 3\\n\\n\\nGatorade began a rebranding effort. In 2016 it registered the\\ntrademark “Gatorade The Sports Fuel Company” with the\\nUnited States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”). Notably,\\nGatorade disclaimed the exclusive use of “The Sports Fuel\\nCompany” after the PTO advised the company that the\\nphrase was merely descriptive of its products.\\n The only link between SportFuel and Gatorade is a nutri‐\\ntionist and dietician named Julie Burns, who founded Sport‐\\nFuel in 1993. Burns had a history of working with Gatorade:\\nshe served as a nutritionist on the Gatorade Sports Science In‐\\nstitute’s Sports Nutrition Advisory Board from 1995 until\\n2003. Burns became aware of Gatorade’s rebranding efforts\\nand the alleged trademark infringement when she saw a Ga‐\\ntorade commercial featuring the new slogan. SportFuel filed\\nsuit against Gatorade and PepsiCo in August 2016. Its com‐\\nplaint alleged trademark infringement (15 U.S.C. § 1051), un‐\\nfair competition, and false designation of origin in violation\\nof the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)). Similarly, SportFuel\\nasserted claims of trademark infringement and unfair compe‐\\ntition in violation of Illinois law. See 815 Ill. Comp. Stat.\\n§§ 505/1, 510/1. Gatorade raised counterclaims for a cancella‐\\ntion of SportFuel’s trademark.\\n Gatorade moved to exclude SportFuel’s expert’s testi‐\\nmony and survey evidence concerning the likelihood of con‐\\nsumer confusion from Gatorade’s use of the slogan. Gatorade\\nalso moved for summary judgment on two grounds. First, it\\nargued that SportFuel failed to provide evidence that allowed\\na jury to find a likelihood of confusion—a necessary element\\nto each of SportFuel’s claims. Second, Gatorade argued that\\nthe Lanham Act protected its use of “Sports Fuel” as a fair use.\\n\\f4 No. 18‐3010\\n\\n\\n On June 14, 2018, the district court granted Gatorade’s mo‐\\ntion for summary judgment after finding that SportFuel failed\\nto produce evidence that demonstrated a factual dispute on\\nany of the three elements of Gatorade’s fair use defense. The\\ncourt also determined that because it found that Gatorade\\nsuccessfully raised the Act’s fair use defense, it need not con‐\\nduct a risk of confusion analysis for SportFuel’s claims. Simi‐\\nlarly, because the court determined that SportFuel’s claims\\nunder Illinois law were subject to the same analysis as its fed‐\\neral claims, it did not separately consider those claims. Sport‐\\nFuel appeals.\\n II. ANALYSIS\\n We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment\\nde novo, viewing all facts in SportFuel’s favor. Georgia‐Pac.\\nConsumer Prods. LP v. Kimberly‐Clark Corp., 647 F.3d 723, 727\\n(7th Cir. 2011). A district court may award summary judg‐\\nment when the evidence shows that “there is no genuine dis‐\\npute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judg‐\\nment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).\\n The Trademark Act of 1946, commonly known as the Lan‐\\nham Act, “federalized” the common law’s trademark protec‐\\ntions. CAE, Inc. v. Clean Air Eng’g, Inc., 267 F.3d 660, 672 (7th\\nCir. 2001). The Lanham Act allows those who employ trade or\\nservice marks to register them for exclusive use in commerce.\\nKP Permanent Make‐Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression I, Inc., 543\\nU.S. 111, 117 (2004). A trademark holder’s right becomes “in‐\\ncontestable” five years after initial registration with the PTO\\nif the holder meets certain conditions. Id.; 15 U.S.C. § 1065.\\n “The holder of a registered mark … has a civil action\\nagainst anyone employing an imitation of it in commerce\\n\\fNo. 18‐3010 5\\n\\n\\nwhen ‘such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mis‐\\ntake, or to deceive.’” KP Permanent Make‐Up, 543 U.S. at 117\\n(quoting 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)(a)). Additionally, the Act pro‐\\nvides trademark‐holders a cause of action against those who\\nmake a false designation of origin for a mark. 15\\nU.S.C. § 1125(a). “To prevail on either claim, a plaintiff must\\nestablish that (1) its mark is protectable and (2) the defend‐\\nant’s use of the mark is likely to cause confusion among con‐\\nsumers.” CAE, Inc., 267 F.3d at 673–74.\\n However, the Lanham Act provides several affirmative\\ndefenses to a plaintiff’s claims, including the “fair use” de‐\\nfense. See 15 U.S.C. § 1115(b). The fair use defense is available\\nagainst even incontestable trademarks, like SportFuel’s.\\nSorensen v. WD‐40 Co., 792 F.3d 712, 722 (7th Cir. 2015). The\\ndefense allows individuals to use otherwise trademarked lan‐\\nguage in a descriptive sense. See Packman v. Chi. Tribune Co.,\\n267 F.3d 628, 639 (7th Cir. 2001); Sunmark, Inc. v. Ocean Spray\\nCranberries, Inc., 64 F.3d 1055, 1058 (7th Cir. 1995). “[A] de‐\\nfendant in a trademark infringement action may invoke the\\nfair use defense by demonstrating that the alleged infringe‐\\nment, ‘is a use, otherwise than as a mark … which is descrip‐\\ntive of and used fairly and in good faith only to describe the\\ngoods or services of such party.’” Sorensen, 792 F.3d at 722\\n(quoting 15 U.S.C. § 1115(b)(4)). In short, to raise the fair use\\ndefense successfully, Gatorade must show that (1) it did not\\nuse “Sports Fuel” as a trademark, (2) the use is descriptive of\\nits goods, and (3) it used the mark fairly and in good faith.\\nSorensen, 792 F.3d at 722; Packman, 267 F.3d at 639. The district\\ncourt determined that Gatorade met all three prongs.\\n On appeal, SportFuel challenges the district court’s con‐\\nclusions on all three prongs of the fair use defense. We review\\n\\f6 No. 18‐3010\\n\\n\\neach prong in turn. However, because we conclude that Ga‐\\ntorade successfully raised a fair use defense against Sport‐\\nFuel’s claims, we do not consider whether Gatorade’s use of\\nthe slogan presented a risk of confusion to SportFuel’s mark.\\n A. Gatorade Did Not Use “Sports Fuel” As a Trademark.\\n SportFuel claims that the district court erred in finding\\nthat Gatorade did not use the term “Sports Fuel” as a trade‐\\nmark. SportFuel supports its argument with three factors: Ga‐\\ntorade uses the slogan as an “attention getting symbol,” it\\nplaced a trademark indication after the slogan, and it sought\\nto trademark the slogan.\\n Words or phrases function as trademarks “when [they are]\\nused by a source of a product to identify itself to the public as\\nthe source of its product and to create in the public conscious‐\\nness an awareness of the uniqueness of the source and of its\\nproducts.” Sorensen, 792 F.3d at 722–23 (quoting Sands, Taylor\\n& Wood Co. v. Quaker Oats Co., 978 F.2d 947, 953 (7th Cir.\\n1992)). Product packaging can include more than one source\\nindicator. Sorensen, 792 F.3d at 723. We look to multiple factors\\nin how a defendant employs a challenged term or phrase to\\ndetermine whether it serves as a source indicator and there‐\\nfore is used as a trademark. Our decision in Quaker Oats is\\nparticularly helpful to illustrate this point.\\n As here, Quaker Oats involved a suit over Gatorade’s use\\nof a slogan in an advertising campaign. 978 F.2d at 953–54.\\nThat campaign used the trademarked phrase “Thirst Aid” in\\n\\fNo. 18‐3010 7\\n\\n\\nthe slogan “Gatorade is THIRST AID.”1 Id. There, the district\\ncourt determined that although Gatorade used its house mark\\nin addition to the slogan, the term “Thirst Aid” also served as\\na source indicator. Id. at 953. The district court emphasized\\nthat Gatorade featured the term “Thirst Aid” prominently on\\nits product packaging—even more prominently than the Ga‐\\ntorade house mark. Gatorade appealed summary judgment in\\nthe plaintiff’s favor, arguing that it used the term “Thirst Aid”\\ndescriptively and not as a trademark. Id.\\n We affirmed and explained that although Gatorade used\\n“Thirst Aid” in tandem with its house mark, it used the term\\nas an “attention‐getting symbol.” Id. at 954. We observed that\\nthe “Gatorade is Thirst Aid” phrase employed a rhyming\\nplay‐on‐words and that Gatorade featured the slogan in\\nlarger, more noticeable font than the house mark. Id. We con‐\\nsequently determined that Gatorade’s use of the slogan\\nwould likely lead consumers to associate the terms “Thirst\\nAid” and “Gatorade,” and that such a use of “Thirst Aid” was\\nmeant to help consumers identify the source of the product.\\nId. These factors supported the district court’s conclusion that\\nGatorade used the phrase as a trademark. Id.\\n In this case, however, the record does not support the no‐\\ntion that Gatorade used the term “Sports Fuel” as a source in‐\\ndicator. Because visuals help considerably in trademark cases,\\nwe include the following photographs included in the parties’\\nbriefs of Gatorade’s use of the slogan:\\n\\n\\n\\n 1 Although the full slogan declared, “Gatorade is THIRST AID for\\nThat Deep Down Body Thirst,” Gatorade’s advertisements and the ensu‐\\ning litigation focused on the first portion. 978 F.2d at 950.\\n\\f8 No. 18‐3010\\n\\fNo. 18‐3010 9\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n As in Quaker Oats, here Gatorade used the term “Sports\\nFuel” in conjunction with its house mark. But the similarities\\nend there. The products’ individual packaging and displays\\nfeature Gatorade’s house mark and G Bolt logo more promi‐\\nnently. Gatorade rarely uses the term “Sports Fuel” directly\\non product packaging, except for where the company labeled\\na “Sports Fuel Drink” with the term. Instead, it primarily fea‐\\ntures the slogan on in‐store displays and other advertise‐\\nments—appearing almost as a subtitle to the house mark. Ad‐\\nditionally, the “Sports Fuel” slogan lacks the catchy, rhyming\\nplay‐on‐words at issue in Quaker Oats. Nothing about Ga‐\\ntorade’s use in this context suggests that consumers would\\nview “Sports Fuel” as a source indicator.\\n SportFuel emphasizes that Gatorade employed a “TM”\\nsymbol with the slogan and obtained a trademark for the slo‐\\ngan. But these facts fail to support SportFuel’s desired conclu‐\\nsion. The slogan notably included Gatorade’s trademark‐pro‐\\ntected house mark. Additionally, Gatorade specifically dis‐\\nclaimed exclusive use of the phrase “The Sports Fuel Com‐\\npany” in its trademark application for “Gatorade The Sports\\nFuel Company.” Sunmark, 64 F.3d at 1059 (noting that Ocean\\nSpray disclaimed exclusive use of a contested, descriptive\\nphrase). During the application process for Gatorade’s slogan,\\n\\f10 No. 18‐3010\\n\\n\\nthe PTO specifically advised Gatorade that it viewed the term\\n“Sports Fuel” as descriptive and therefore inappropriate for\\ntrademark use. And as the district court pointed out, Ga‐\\ntorade’s chief marketing officer stated in his deposition that\\nhe viewed the whole phrase—including the protected house\\nmark—as a trademark.\\n Thus, even construing the record in SportFuel’s favor on\\nsummary judgment, insufficient evidence supports Sport‐\\nFuel’s claim. Accordingly, we do not believe the district court\\nerred in determining that Gatorade never employed the term\\n“Sports Fuel” as a trademark in its “Gatorade The Sports Fuel\\nCompany” slogan.\\n B. Gatorade Used “Sports Fuel” Descriptively.\\n The district court also found that Gatorade used “Sports\\nFuel” descriptively, rather than suggestively, and therefore\\nnot as a trademark. SportFuel maintains that the district court\\nerred in this determination. We review the district court’s\\nclassification de novo. Quaker Oats, 978 F.2d at 952. “Inherent\\ndistinctiveness is a question of fact, and summary judgment\\nis appropriate only if, reading the record in [SportFuel’s] fa‐\\nvor, no reasonable factfinder could decide for it.” Uncommon,\\nLLC v. Spigen, Inc., 926 F.3d 409, 420 (7th Cir. 2019).\\n Trademark law awards trademark protection to various\\ncategories of words, terms, and phrases if consumers rely on\\nthose marks to identify and distinguish one company’s goods\\nor services from those of others. Platinum Home Mort. Corp. v.\\nPlatinum Fin. Grp., Inc., 149 F.3d 722, 727 (7th Cir. 1998).\\n“Marks are classified into five categories of increasing distinc‐\\ntiveness: (1) generic, (2) descriptive, (3) suggestive, (4) arbi‐\\ntrary, and (5) fanciful.” Id. Generally, trademark law does not\\n\\fNo. 18‐3010 11\\n\\n\\nallow sellers to register marks for terms that are generic or\\ndescriptive of products or services. Custom Vehicles, Inc. v. For‐\\nest River, Inc., 476 F.3d 481, 483 (7th Cir. 2007). We previously\\nexplained that this rule prevents sellers from branding their\\nproduct with a name or term that the public uses to identify\\nthe category of items. Id. An exception to this general rule is\\nthat “[d]escriptive terms … are protectable as a trademark if\\nthey have developed secondary meaning.” Sorensen, 792 F.3d\\nat 723. But a descriptive term only acquires a secondary mean‐\\ning after most consumers think of the term as the name of the\\nproduct instead of as descriptive of the product. Packman, 267\\nF.3d at 639.\\n Conversely, the law affords automatic protection to sug‐\\ngestive, arbitrary, and fanciful terms, which are inherently\\ndistinctive. Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763, 768\\n(1992); Platinum Home Mortg., 149 F.3d at 727. We recently\\nnoted that “[t]he line between descriptiveness and sugges‐\\ntiveness can be difficult to draw.” Uncommon, 926 F.3d at 421.\\n “A mark is descriptive when ‘it describes the product cat‐\\negory to which the brand belongs.’” Id. (quoting Custom Vehi‐\\ncles, 476 F.3d at 483. Descriptive phrases refer to a characteris‐\\ntic of the product. Quaker Oats, 978 F.2d at 953. But they need\\nnot be common phrases. Id.\\n Suggestive marks, on the other hand, do not “directly and\\nimmediately describe an aspect of the goods,” rather they “re‐\\nquire[] an observer or listener to use imagination and percep‐\\ntion to determine the nature of the goods.” Uncommon, 926\\nF.3d at 421 (quotations omitted). However, just because a\\nphrase is unfamiliar and “requires a hearer to think about its\\nmeaning” does not necessarily mean it is suggestive. Quaker\\nOats, 978 F.2d at 953. Courts look to a variety of factors to\\n\\f12 No. 18‐3010\\n\\n\\ndistinguish between descriptive and suggestive terminology,\\nbut we find two factors particularly helpful in this instance.2\\n“First, we can look to how, and how often, the relevant market\\nuses the word [or phrase] in question.” Uncommon, 926 F.3d\\nat 421. Second, we employ the “imagination test,” where we\\nask whether the word or phrase imparts information about\\nthe product or service directly or rather requires “some oper‐\\nation of the imagination to connect it with the goods.” Id. at\\n422 (quoting Platinum Home Mortg., 149 F.3d at 727). Both fac‐\\ntors lead us to characterize the slogan here as descriptive.\\n First, producers of nutritional products for athletes regu‐\\nlarly invoke the “Sports Fuel” terminology to describe the\\nproducts they sell. Gatorade provided numerous examples of\\nthis widespread industry use to the district court, including,\\nfor example, Twin Laboratories’ “SPORT FUEL” and Trident\\nSports’ “SPORTS FUEL.” Similarly, the PTO recognized this\\npoint when it processed Gatorade’s trademark application\\nstating, “[a]s SPORTS FUEL is commonly used in reference to\\nsports nutrition, consumers encountering the wording THE\\nSPORTS FUEL COMPANY in the proposed mark would\\nreadily understand it to mean that the goods are provided by\\na company that provides sports nutrition.” This widespread\\nindustry use, coupled with Gatorade’s disclaimer of exclusive\\nuse of “The Sports Fuel Company,” supports Gatorade’s ar‐\\ngument it used “Sports Fuel” descriptively.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 2\\n Courts also occasionally find dictionary definitions and third‐party\\npatent registrations probative of whether a term or phrase is descriptive.\\nSee Uncommon, 926 F.3d at 422‐23.\\n\\fNo. 18‐3010 13\\n\\n\\n Second, SportFuel argues that Gatorade’s use of “Sports\\nFuel” is suggestive—and not descriptive—of Gatorade’s\\nproducts because the term requires a mental leap to deduce\\nthat the company is really selling athletic nutrition products.\\nTo support this notion, SportFuel also points out that Ga‐\\ntorade’s consumers, by and large, are not high‐performance\\nathletes. We find these arguments unpersuasive. The use of\\n“Sports Fuel” in “Gatorade The Sports Fuel Company” clearly\\ndescribes the category of goods that Gatorade produces. It re‐\\nquires no imaginative leap to understand that a company sell‐\\ning “Sports Fuel” is selling a variety of food products de‐\\nsigned for athletes. That non‐athletes regularly consume Ga‐\\ntorade’s products has no bearing whether the term is descrip‐\\ntive. Just as the pervasive use of yoga pants and other active‐\\nwear as casual clothing does not change the athletic charac‐\\nteristics of those products, the fact that Gatorade sells more\\nsports drinks to average joes who limit their rigorous exercise\\nto lawn mowing does not change the athletic characteristics\\nof Gatorade’s products.\\n We conclude that Gatorade’s slogan uses “Sports Fuel” in\\na descriptive sense.\\n C. Gatorade Uses “Sports Fuel” Fairly and in Good Faith.\\n A party raising a fair use defense “must show that it used\\nthe plaintiff’s mark fairly and in good faith.” Sorensen, 792\\nF.3d at 725. Courts determine defendants’ good faith by look‐\\ning to their subjective purpose in using a slogan. Packman, 267\\nF.3d at 642. As an initial matter, we note that although the dis‐\\ntrict court’s analysis implicitly confirmed that Gatorade used\\n“Sport Fuel” in good faith, it never stated its conclusion ex‐\\nplicitly. Nonetheless, as we explain, we believe Gatorade pro‐\\nduced sufficient evidence to show that it descriptively used\\n\\f14 No. 18‐3010\\n\\n\\nthe term “Sports Fuel” in its slogan fairly and in good faith.\\nSportFuel insisted during summary judgment that the evi‐\\ndence, construed in its favor, demonstrated that Gatorade\\nacted unfairly and in bad faith by using its slogan. But the dis‐\\ntrict court rejected SportFuel’s argument and explained why\\nSportFuel failed to show that Gatorade acted in bad faith.\\n On appeal, SportFuel challenges the district court’s con‐\\nclusion for three reasons. First, SportFuel claims that evidence\\nproduced during discovery justified inferring bad faith on\\nGatorade’s part. Second, the district court purportedly erred\\nin concluding that Gatorade used “Sports Fuel” fairly given\\nthe risk that reverse confusion posed to SportFuel. Third, Ga‐\\ntorade uses “Sports Fuel” in a trademark manner, beyond de‐\\nscribing its goods or services.\\n 1. SportFuel Provides Insufficient Evidence of Gatorade’s Bad\\n Faith.\\n SportFuel alleges that the district court erred because it\\nnever properly considered evidence of Gatorade’s bad faith.\\nIt provides four main examples to support this argument.\\nFirst, it argues that Gatorade was aware of SportFuel’s mark\\nby virtue of Gatorade’s previous working relationship with\\nJulie Burns. Second, it suggests that Gatorade’s continued use\\nof “Sports Fuel” after SportFuel filed suit betrays its bad faith.\\nThird, SportFuel points to a dearth of evidence concerning\\nGatorade’s adoption of its new slogan. Fourth, SportFuel al‐\\nludes to a falling out between Gatorade and Burns, suggesting\\nthat Gatorade adopted the new slogan to settle an old score.\\n SportFuel alleges that Gatorade’s bad faith is demon‐\\nstrated by the fact that it began to use “Sports Fuel” even\\nthough it knew of SportFuel’s mark. But the defendant’s\\n\\fNo. 18‐3010 15\\n\\n\\n“mere knowledge” of the plaintiff’s mark, without other evi‐\\ndence of subjective bad faith, is insufficient. Sorensen, 792 F.3d\\nat 725. Accordingly, “[t]o survive summary judgment, a\\nplaintiff must point to something more that suggests subjec‐\\ntive bad faith.” Id. Therefore, without other, substantial evi‐\\ndence, this factor provides no support for the claim that Ga‐\\ntorade used “Sports Fuel” in bad faith.\\n SportFuel also points to Gatorade’s continued use of\\n“Sports Fuel,” even after SportFuel filed this suit. But “it is\\nlawful to use a mark that does not infringe some other; inten‐\\ntional infringement creates problems, but [a defendant’s] in‐\\ntentional use of a mark that [it] had every right to use is not\\nitself a ground on which to draw an adverse inference.” M‐F‐\\nG Corp. v. EMRA Corp., 817 F.2d 410, 412 (7th Cir. 1987). Ga‐\\ntorade believed it had every right to use “Sports Fuel” in a\\ndescriptive sense, so its continued use after SportFuel filed\\nsuit also fails to justify an inference of bad faith.\\n Third, SportFuel suggests that Gatorade failed to produce\\nevidence in discovery that must have existed. Specifically, Ga‐\\ntorade’s production included no documentation related to its\\napproval of the slogan “Gatorade The Sports Fuel Company.”\\nSportFuel argues that a company as large as Gatorade cer‐\\ntainly required high‐level approval before adopting a nation‐\\nwide rebranding campaign. And presumably Gatorade\\nwould possess documentation of that approval. Yet, “[s]pecu‐\\nlation will not suffice” to defeat summary judgment. Borcky v.\\nMaytag Corp., 248 F.3d 691, 695 (7th Cir. 2001); Amadio v. Ford\\nMotor Co., 238 F.3d 919, 927 (7th Cir. 2001) (“It is well‐settled\\nthat speculation may not be used to manufacture a genuine\\nissue of fact.”); Gorbitz v. Corvilla, Inc., 196 F.3d 879, 882 (7th\\nCir.1999). SportFuel’s argument relies on the assumption that\\n\\f16 No. 18‐3010\\n\\n\\nsomething must have existed. But the time to pursue this idea\\nwas during discovery. SportFuel did not, and it cannot now\\navoid summary judgment with assumption or speculation.\\nThe record neither provides evidence to support the claim\\nthat Gatorade adopted the slogan in bad faith, nor indicates\\nthat Gatorade purposefully failed to produce such evidence.\\n Fourth, SportFuel suggests that Gatorade’s adoption of\\nthe slogan relates to a falling out between Burns and Ga‐\\ntorade. The problem with this claim—much like the last argu‐\\nment—is that SportFuel provides no relevant evidence as sup‐\\nport. It relies on Burns’s deposition testimony, where she\\nstated that her relationship with Gatorade ended after she re‐\\nfused to endorse one of Gatorade’s new sugary sports bar\\nproducts. However, Burns’s relationship with Gatorade\\nended more than a decade before the alleged infringement be‐\\ngan. And the idea that a new slogan for a nation‐wide re‐\\nbranding campaign and stale antipathy towards Burns are\\nconnected is facially incredible when otherwise unsupported\\nby the record.\\n We accordingly find none of these factors significant\\nenough—individually or in the aggregate—to create an infer‐\\nence of Gatorade’s bad faith.\\n 2. The Risk of Reverse Confusion Does Not Demonstrate Ga‐\\n torade’s Bad Faith.\\n Second, SportFuel claims that the district court conducted\\nan insufficient analysis of Gatorade’s intent in using “Sports\\nFuel” because its alleged infringement creates reverse confu‐\\nsion. “Reverse confusion occurs when a large junior user sat‐\\nurates the market with a trademark similar or identical to that\\nof a smaller, senior user. In such a case, the junior user does\\n\\fNo. 18‐3010 17\\n\\n\\nnot seek to profit from the good will associated with the sen‐\\nior user’s mark.” Quaker Oats, 978 F.2d at 957. We previously\\nexplained that reverse confusion nonetheless harms the sen‐\\nior user because “[t]he public comes to assume that the senior\\nuser’s products are really the junior user’s or that the former\\nhas become somehow connected to the latter.” Id. (quoting\\nAmeritech, Inc. v. Am. Info. Tech. Corp., 811 F.2d 960, 964 (6th\\nCir. 1987)). As a result, “the senior user loses the value of the\\ntrademark—its product identity, corporate identity, control\\nover its goodwill and reputation, and ability to move into new\\nmarkets.” Id. In this case, the alleged reverse confusion would\\noccur when Gatorade used its house mark alongside the term\\n“Sports Fuel,” which would effectively coopt SportFuel’s\\ntrademark and confuse consumers by leading them to believe\\nthe companies were related.\\n We cannot agree that the district court erred because it de‐\\nclined to examine Gatorade’s intent in using “Sports Fuel.” In\\nQuaker Oats, we explained that intent is largely irrelevant in\\nreverse confusion cases because “the defendant by definition\\nis not palming off or otherwise attempting to create confusion\\nas to the source of his product.” Id. at 961 (emphasis in origi‐\\nnal); but see Marketquest Grp., Inc. v. BIC Corp., 862 F.3d 927,\\n937 (9th Cir. 2017) (applying the Ninth Circuit’s test that ana‐\\nlyzes intent).\\n But even if it were appropriate to examine Gatorade’s in‐\\ntent in using “Sports Fuel” in its slogan, SportFuel’s argument\\nwould fail. Gatorade provided evidence showing that it\\nadopted the slogan to reflect its various types of sports fuel\\nproducts. At the same time, SportFuel neither provides nor\\nidentifies substantive evidence to support the notion that Ga‐\\ntorade adopted its slogan in any spirit other than good faith.\\n\\f18 No. 18‐3010\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 3. Gatorade Uses “Sports Fuel” Descriptively.\\n SportFuel lastly urges that Gatorade views the slogan as a\\ntrademark and therefore used “Sports Fuel” unfairly and in\\nbad faith. As mentioned above, SportFuel supports this argu‐\\nment by pointing out that Gatorade adorns its slogan with a\\n“TM.” SportFuel also relies on testimony by Gatorade’s chief\\nmarketing officer, in which he stated that he viewed the entire\\nslogan, “Gatorade The Sports Fuel Company” as a trademark.\\nFor the reasons mentioned earlier in this opinion, we believe\\nGatorade employed the term “Sports Fuel” descriptively and\\nnot as a trademark. We therefore do not accept that Gatorade\\nused the slogan unfairly or in bad faith.\\n Further, it is clear from the record that Gatorade provided\\nsufficient evidence that it used the term “Sports Fuel” fairly\\nand in good faith. Gatorade’s stated purpose in adopting the\\nchallenged slogan was to help the company better describe its\\nbusiness and the products it sells. Nothing in the record actu‐\\nally contradicts this purpose. Gatorade produced evidence\\ndemonstrating that the company and its employees view\\nthemselves as producers of sports fuels. Moreover, Gatorade\\nboth specifically disclaimed exclusive use of the phrase “The\\nSports Fuel Company” and prominently used its house mark\\nand G Bolt logo in a manner distinct from the slogan.\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district\\ncourt is AFFIRMED.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4422718/\", \"author_raw\": \"Michael Stephen Kanne\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"KANNE"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"BARRETT"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"BRENNAN"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"KANNE\": \", Circuit\", \"BARRETT\": \", Circuit\", \"BRENNAN\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645465/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":8,"string":"8"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: SportFuel, Inc. v. PepsiCo, Inc.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-08-02\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18‐3010\nSPORTFUEL, INC.,\n Plaintiff‐Appellant,\n v.\n\nPEPSICO, INC. and\nTHE GATORADE COMPANY,\n Defendants‐Appellees.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\n No. 16‐cv‐7868 — Matthew F. Kennelly, Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED APRIL 9, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 2, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before KANNE, BARRETT, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\n KANNE, Circuit Judge. SportFuel appeals the district court’s\ngrant of summary judgment for Gatorade and its parent com‐\npany, PepsiCo. SportFuel brought this suit against Gatorade\nalleging violations of its trademark after Gatorade rebranded\nitself with the slogan, “Gatorade The Sports Fuel Company.”\nThe district court deemed Gatorade’s slogan a fair use pro‐\ntected by the Lanham Act. We affirm.\n\f2 No. 18‐3010\n\n\n I. BACKGROUND\n SportFuel is a Chicago‐based sports nutrition and well‐\nness consulting firm whose clients include several of Chi‐\ncago’s prominent professional sports teams and their athletes.\nThe company provides personalized nutrition consulting ser‐\nvices to professional and amateur athletes, but also sells\nSportFuel‐branded dietary supplements. SportFuel holds two\nregistered trademarks for “SportFuel.” It registered the first\nfor “food nutrition consultation, nutrition counseling, and\nproviding information about dietary supplements and nutri‐\ntion.” After several years of use, SportFuel’s trademark be‐\ncame “incontestable” in 2013 under 15 U.S.C. § 1065. Sport‐\nFuel also registered a trademark in 2015 for “goods and ser‐\nvices related to dietary supplements and sports drinks en‐\nhanced with vitamins.”\n Gatorade was created in 1965 at the University of Florida\nCollege of Medicine and public sales began several years later.\nUndoubtedly, Gatorade is more widely known. It is the offi‐\ncial sports drink of the NBA, PGA, MLB, MLS, and many\nother professional and collegiate organizations. Whether by\ntelevision imagery of victorious athletes drenching their\ncoaches or teammates with a Gatorade shower from a distinc‐\ntive cooler, or through aggressive national media marketing\ncampaigns, Gatorade became a household name.\n In addition to its traditional sports drinks, Gatorade now\ncustomizes its sports drink line by selling formulas that are\ntailored to the nutritional needs of individual professional\nathletes. The company also sells numerous other sports nutri‐\ntion products beyond sports drinks. It began to publicly de‐\nscribe its products as sports fuels in 2013. Seeking to broaden\nits public image to reflect its expanded variety of products,\n\fNo. 18‐3010 3\n\n\nGatorade began a rebranding effort. In 2016 it registered the\ntrademark “Gatorade The Sports Fuel Company” with the\nUnited States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”). Notably,\nGatorade disclaimed the exclusive use of “The Sports Fuel\nCompany” after the PTO advised the company that the\nphrase was merely descriptive of its products.\n The only link between SportFuel and Gatorade is a nutri‐\ntionist and dietician named Julie Burns, who founded Sport‐\nFuel in 1993. Burns had a history of working with Gatorade:\nshe served as a nutritionist on the Gatorade Sports Science In‐\nstitute’s Sports Nutrition Advisory Board from 1995 until\n2003. Burns became aware of Gatorade’s rebranding efforts\nand the alleged trademark infringement when she saw a Ga‐\ntorade commercial featuring the new slogan. SportFuel filed\nsuit against Gatorade and PepsiCo in August 2016. Its com‐\nplaint alleged trademark infringement (15 U.S.C. § 1051), un‐\nfair competition, and false designation of origin in violation\nof the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)). Similarly, SportFuel\nasserted claims of trademark infringement and unfair compe‐\ntition in violation of Illinois law. See 815 Ill. Comp. Stat.\n§§ 505/1, 510/1. Gatorade raised counterclaims for a cancella‐\ntion of SportFuel’s trademark.\n Gatorade moved to exclude SportFuel’s expert’s testi‐\nmony and survey evidence concerning the likelihood of con‐\nsumer confusion from Gatorade’s use of the slogan. Gatorade\nalso moved for summary judgment on two grounds. First, it\nargued that SportFuel failed to provide evidence that allowed\na jury to find a likelihood of confusion—a necessary element\nto each of SportFuel’s claims. Second, Gatorade argued that\nthe Lanham Act protected its use of “Sports Fuel” as a fair use.\n\f4 No. 18‐3010\n\n\n On June 14, 2018, the district court granted Gatorade’s mo‐\ntion for summary judgment after finding that SportFuel failed\nto produce evidence that demonstrated a factual dispute on\nany of the three elements of Gatorade’s fair use defense. The\ncourt also determined that because it found that Gatorade\nsuccessfully raised the Act’s fair use defense, it need not con‐\nduct a risk of confusion analysis for SportFuel’s claims. Simi‐\nlarly, because the court determined that SportFuel’s claims\nunder Illinois law were subject to the same analysis as its fed‐\neral claims, it did not separately consider those claims. Sport‐\nFuel appeals.\n II. ANALYSIS\n We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment\nde novo, viewing all facts in SportFuel’s favor. Georgia‐Pac.\nConsumer Prods. LP v. Kimberly‐Clark Corp., 647 F.3d 723, 727\n(7th Cir. 2011). A district court may award summary judg‐\nment when the evidence shows that “there is no genuine dis‐\npute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judg‐\nment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).\n The Trademark Act of 1946, commonly known as the Lan‐\nham Act, “federalized” the common law’s trademark protec‐\ntions. CAE, Inc. v. Clean Air Eng’g, Inc., 267 F.3d 660, 672 (7th\nCir. 2001). The Lanham Act allows those who employ trade or\nservice marks to register them for exclusive use in commerce.\nKP Permanent Make‐Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression I, Inc., 543\nU.S. 111, 117 (2004). A trademark holder’s right becomes “in‐\ncontestable” five years after initial registration with the PTO\nif the holder meets certain conditions. Id.; 15 U.S.C. § 1065.\n “The holder of a registered mark … has a civil action\nagainst anyone employing an imitation of it in commerce\n\fNo. 18‐3010 5\n\n\nwhen ‘such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mis‐\ntake, or to deceive.’” KP Permanent Make‐Up, 543 U.S. at 117\n(quoting 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)(a)). Additionally, the Act pro‐\nvides trademark‐holders a cause of action against those who\nmake a false designation of origin for a mark. 15\nU.S.C. § 1125(a). “To prevail on either claim, a plaintiff must\nestablish that (1) its mark is protectable and (2) the defend‐\nant’s use of the mark is likely to cause confusion among con‐\nsumers.” CAE, Inc., 267 F.3d at 673–74.\n However, the Lanham Act provides several affirmative\ndefenses to a plaintiff’s claims, including the “fair use” de‐\nfense. See 15 U.S.C. § 1115(b). The fair use defense is available\nagainst even incontestable trademarks, like SportFuel’s.\nSorensen v. WD‐40 Co., 792 F.3d 712, 722 (7th Cir. 2015). The\ndefense allows individuals to use otherwise trademarked lan‐\nguage in a descriptive sense. See Packman v. Chi. Tribune Co.,\n267 F.3d 628, 639 (7th Cir. 2001); Sunmark, Inc. v. Ocean Spray\nCranberries, Inc., 64 F.3d 1055, 1058 (7th Cir. 1995). “[A] de‐\nfendant in a trademark infringement action may invoke the\nfair use defense by demonstrating that the alleged infringe‐\nment, ‘is a use, otherwise than as a mark … which is descrip‐\ntive of and used fairly and in good faith only to describe the\ngoods or services of such party.’” Sorensen, 792 F.3d at 722\n(quoting 15 U.S.C. § 1115(b)(4)). In short, to raise the fair use\ndefense successfully, Gatorade must show that (1) it did not\nuse “Sports Fuel” as a trademark, (2) the use is descriptive of\nits goods, and (3) it used the mark fairly and in good faith.\nSorensen, 792 F.3d at 722; Packman, 267 F.3d at 639. The district\ncourt determined that Gatorade met all three prongs.\n On appeal, SportFuel challenges the district court’s con‐\nclusions on all three prongs of the fair use defense. We review\n\f6 No. 18‐3010\n\n\neach prong in turn. However, because we conclude that Ga‐\ntorade successfully raised a fair use defense against Sport‐\nFuel’s claims, we do not consider whether Gatorade’s use of\nthe slogan presented a risk of confusion to SportFuel’s mark.\n A. Gatorade Did Not Use “Sports Fuel” As a Trademark.\n SportFuel claims that the district court erred in finding\nthat Gatorade did not use the term “Sports Fuel” as a trade‐\nmark. SportFuel supports its argument with three factors: Ga‐\ntorade uses the slogan as an “attention getting symbol,” it\nplaced a trademark indication after the slogan, and it sought\nto trademark the slogan.\n Words or phrases function as trademarks “when [they are]\nused by a source of a product to identify itself to the public as\nthe source of its product and to create in the public conscious‐\nness an awareness of the uniqueness of the source and of its\nproducts.” Sorensen, 792 F.3d at 722–23 (quoting Sands, Taylor\n& Wood Co. v. Quaker Oats Co., 978 F.2d 947, 953 (7th Cir.\n1992)). Product packaging can include more than one source\nindicator. Sorensen, 792 F.3d at 723. We look to multiple factors\nin how a defendant employs a challenged term or phrase to\ndetermine whether it serves as a source indicator and there‐\nfore is used as a trademark. Our decision in Quaker Oats is\nparticularly helpful to illustrate this point.\n As here, Quaker Oats involved a suit over Gatorade’s use\nof a slogan in an advertising campaign. 978 F.2d at 953–54.\nThat campaign used the trademarked phrase “Thirst Aid” in\n\fNo. 18‐3010 7\n\n\nthe slogan “Gatorade is THIRST AID.”1 Id. There, the district\ncourt determined that although Gatorade used its house mark\nin addition to the slogan, the term “Thirst Aid” also served as\na source indicator. Id. at 953. The district court emphasized\nthat Gatorade featured the term “Thirst Aid” prominently on\nits product packaging—even more prominently than the Ga‐\ntorade house mark. Gatorade appealed summary judgment in\nthe plaintiff’s favor, arguing that it used the term “Thirst Aid”\ndescriptively and not as a trademark. Id.\n We affirmed and explained that although Gatorade used\n“Thirst Aid” in tandem with its house mark, it used the term\nas an “attention‐getting symbol.” Id. at 954. We observed that\nthe “Gatorade is Thirst Aid” phrase employed a rhyming\nplay‐on‐words and that Gatorade featured the slogan in\nlarger, more noticeable font than the house mark. Id. We con‐\nsequently determined that Gatorade’s use of the slogan\nwould likely lead consumers to associate the terms “Thirst\nAid” and “Gatorade,” and that such a use of “Thirst Aid” was\nmeant to help consumers identify the source of the product.\nId. These factors supported the district court’s conclusion that\nGatorade used the phrase as a trademark. Id.\n In this case, however, the record does not support the no‐\ntion that Gatorade used the term “Sports Fuel” as a source in‐\ndicator. Because visuals help considerably in trademark cases,\nwe include the following photographs included in the parties’\nbriefs of Gatorade’s use of the slogan:\n\n\n\n 1 Although the full slogan declared, “Gatorade is THIRST AID for\nThat Deep Down Body Thirst,” Gatorade’s advertisements and the ensu‐\ning litigation focused on the first portion. 978 F.2d at 950.\n\f8 No. 18‐3010\n\fNo. 18‐3010 9\n\n\n\n\n As in Quaker Oats, here Gatorade used the term “Sports\nFuel” in conjunction with its house mark. But the similarities\nend there. The products’ individual packaging and displays\nfeature Gatorade’s house mark and G Bolt logo more promi‐\nnently. Gatorade rarely uses the term “Sports Fuel” directly\non product packaging, except for where the company labeled\na “Sports Fuel Drink” with the term. Instead, it primarily fea‐\ntures the slogan on in‐store displays and other advertise‐\nments—appearing almost as a subtitle to the house mark. Ad‐\nditionally, the “Sports Fuel” slogan lacks the catchy, rhyming\nplay‐on‐words at issue in Quaker Oats. Nothing about Ga‐\ntorade’s use in this context suggests that consumers would\nview “Sports Fuel” as a source indicator.\n SportFuel emphasizes that Gatorade employed a “TM”\nsymbol with the slogan and obtained a trademark for the slo‐\ngan. But these facts fail to support SportFuel’s desired conclu‐\nsion. The slogan notably included Gatorade’s trademark‐pro‐\ntected house mark. Additionally, Gatorade specifically dis‐\nclaimed exclusive use of the phrase “The Sports Fuel Com‐\npany” in its trademark application for “Gatorade The Sports\nFuel Company.” Sunmark, 64 F.3d at 1059 (noting that Ocean\nSpray disclaimed exclusive use of a contested, descriptive\nphrase). During the application process for Gatorade’s slogan,\n\f10 No. 18‐3010\n\n\nthe PTO specifically advised Gatorade that it viewed the term\n“Sports Fuel” as descriptive and therefore inappropriate for\ntrademark use. And as the district court pointed out, Ga‐\ntorade’s chief marketing officer stated in his deposition that\nhe viewed the whole phrase—including the protected house\nmark—as a trademark.\n Thus, even construing the record in SportFuel’s favor on\nsummary judgment, insufficient evidence supports Sport‐\nFuel’s claim. Accordingly, we do not believe the district court\nerred in determining that Gatorade never employed the term\n“Sports Fuel” as a trademark in its “Gatorade The Sports Fuel\nCompany” slogan.\n B. Gatorade Used “Sports Fuel” Descriptively.\n The district court also found that Gatorade used “Sports\nFuel” descriptively, rather than suggestively, and therefore\nnot as a trademark. SportFuel maintains that the district court\nerred in this determination. We review the district court’s\nclassification de novo. Quaker Oats, 978 F.2d at 952. “Inherent\ndistinctiveness is a question of fact, and summary judgment\nis appropriate only if, reading the record in [SportFuel’s] fa‐\nvor, no reasonable factfinder could decide for it.” Uncommon,\nLLC v. Spigen, Inc., 926 F.3d 409, 420 (7th Cir. 2019).\n Trademark law awards trademark protection to various\ncategories of words, terms, and phrases if consumers rely on\nthose marks to identify and distinguish one company’s goods\nor services from those of others. Platinum Home Mort. Corp. v.\nPlatinum Fin. Grp., Inc., 149 F.3d 722, 727 (7th Cir. 1998).\n“Marks are classified into five categories of increasing distinc‐\ntiveness: (1) generic, (2) descriptive, (3) suggestive, (4) arbi‐\ntrary, and (5) fanciful.” Id. Generally, trademark law does not\n\fNo. 18‐3010 11\n\n\nallow sellers to register marks for terms that are generic or\ndescriptive of products or services. Custom Vehicles, Inc. v. For‐\nest River, Inc., 476 F.3d 481, 483 (7th Cir. 2007). We previously\nexplained that this rule prevents sellers from branding their\nproduct with a name or term that the public uses to identify\nthe category of items. Id. An exception to this general rule is\nthat “[d]escriptive terms … are protectable as a trademark if\nthey have developed secondary meaning.” Sorensen, 792 F.3d\nat 723. But a descriptive term only acquires a secondary mean‐\ning after most consumers think of the term as the name of the\nproduct instead of as descriptive of the product. Packman, 267\nF.3d at 639.\n Conversely, the law affords automatic protection to sug‐\ngestive, arbitrary, and fanciful terms, which are inherently\ndistinctive. Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763, 768\n(1992); Platinum Home Mortg., 149 F.3d at 727. We recently\nnoted that “[t]he line between descriptiveness and sugges‐\ntiveness can be difficult to draw.” Uncommon, 926 F.3d at 421.\n “A mark is descriptive when ‘it describes the product cat‐\negory to which the brand belongs.’” Id. (quoting Custom Vehi‐\ncles, 476 F.3d at 483. Descriptive phrases refer to a characteris‐\ntic of the product. Quaker Oats, 978 F.2d at 953. But they need\nnot be common phrases. Id.\n Suggestive marks, on the other hand, do not “directly and\nimmediately describe an aspect of the goods,” rather they “re‐\nquire[] an observer or listener to use imagination and percep‐\ntion to determine the nature of the goods.” Uncommon, 926\nF.3d at 421 (quotations omitted). However, just because a\nphrase is unfamiliar and “requires a hearer to think about its\nmeaning” does not necessarily mean it is suggestive. Quaker\nOats, 978 F.2d at 953. Courts look to a variety of factors to\n\f12 No. 18‐3010\n\n\ndistinguish between descriptive and suggestive terminology,\nbut we find two factors particularly helpful in this instance.2\n“First, we can look to how, and how often, the relevant market\nuses the word [or phrase] in question.” Uncommon, 926 F.3d\nat 421. Second, we employ the “imagination test,” where we\nask whether the word or phrase imparts information about\nthe product or service directly or rather requires “some oper‐\nation of the imagination to connect it with the goods.” Id. at\n422 (quoting Platinum Home Mortg., 149 F.3d at 727). Both fac‐\ntors lead us to characterize the slogan here as descriptive.\n First, producers of nutritional products for athletes regu‐\nlarly invoke the “Sports Fuel” terminology to describe the\nproducts they sell. Gatorade provided numerous examples of\nthis widespread industry use to the district court, including,\nfor example, Twin Laboratories’ “SPORT FUEL” and Trident\nSports’ “SPORTS FUEL.” Similarly, the PTO recognized this\npoint when it processed Gatorade’s trademark application\nstating, “[a]s SPORTS FUEL is commonly used in reference to\nsports nutrition, consumers encountering the wording THE\nSPORTS FUEL COMPANY in the proposed mark would\nreadily understand it to mean that the goods are provided by\na company that provides sports nutrition.” This widespread\nindustry use, coupled with Gatorade’s disclaimer of exclusive\nuse of “The Sports Fuel Company,” supports Gatorade’s ar‐\ngument it used “Sports Fuel” descriptively.\n\n\n\n\n 2\n Courts also occasionally find dictionary definitions and third‐party\npatent registrations probative of whether a term or phrase is descriptive.\nSee Uncommon, 926 F.3d at 422‐23.\n\fNo. 18‐3010 13\n\n\n Second, SportFuel argues that Gatorade’s use of “Sports\nFuel” is suggestive—and not descriptive—of Gatorade’s\nproducts because the term requires a mental leap to deduce\nthat the company is really selling athletic nutrition products.\nTo support this notion, SportFuel also points out that Ga‐\ntorade’s consumers, by and large, are not high‐performance\nathletes. We find these arguments unpersuasive. The use of\n“Sports Fuel” in “Gatorade The Sports Fuel Company” clearly\ndescribes the category of goods that Gatorade produces. It re‐\nquires no imaginative leap to understand that a company sell‐\ning “Sports Fuel” is selling a variety of food products de‐\nsigned for athletes. That non‐athletes regularly consume Ga‐\ntorade’s products has no bearing whether the term is descrip‐\ntive. Just as the pervasive use of yoga pants and other active‐\nwear as casual clothing does not change the athletic charac‐\nteristics of those products, the fact that Gatorade sells more\nsports drinks to average joes who limit their rigorous exercise\nto lawn mowing does not change the athletic characteristics\nof Gatorade’s products.\n We conclude that Gatorade’s slogan uses “Sports Fuel” in\na descriptive sense.\n C. Gatorade Uses “Sports Fuel” Fairly and in Good Faith.\n A party raising a fair use defense “must show that it used\nthe plaintiff’s mark fairly and in good faith.” Sorensen, 792\nF.3d at 725. Courts determine defendants’ good faith by look‐\ning to their subjective purpose in using a slogan. Packman, 267\nF.3d at 642. As an initial matter, we note that although the dis‐\ntrict court’s analysis implicitly confirmed that Gatorade used\n“Sport Fuel” in good faith, it never stated its conclusion ex‐\nplicitly. Nonetheless, as we explain, we believe Gatorade pro‐\nduced sufficient evidence to show that it descriptively used\n\f14 No. 18‐3010\n\n\nthe term “Sports Fuel” in its slogan fairly and in good faith.\nSportFuel insisted during summary judgment that the evi‐\ndence, construed in its favor, demonstrated that Gatorade\nacted unfairly and in bad faith by using its slogan. But the dis‐\ntrict court rejected SportFuel’s argument and explained why\nSportFuel failed to show that Gatorade acted in bad faith.\n On appeal, SportFuel challenges the district court’s con‐\nclusion for three reasons. First, SportFuel claims that evidence\nproduced during discovery justified inferring bad faith on\nGatorade’s part. Second, the district court purportedly erred\nin concluding that Gatorade used “Sports Fuel” fairly given\nthe risk that reverse confusion posed to SportFuel. Third, Ga‐\ntorade uses “Sports Fuel” in a trademark manner, beyond de‐\nscribing its goods or services.\n 1. SportFuel Provides Insufficient Evidence of Gatorade’s Bad\n Faith.\n SportFuel alleges that the district court erred because it\nnever properly considered evidence of Gatorade’s bad faith.\nIt provides four main examples to support this argument.\nFirst, it argues that Gatorade was aware of SportFuel’s mark\nby virtue of Gatorade’s previous working relationship with\nJulie Burns. Second, it suggests that Gatorade’s continued use\nof “Sports Fuel” after SportFuel filed suit betrays its bad faith.\nThird, SportFuel points to a dearth of evidence concerning\nGatorade’s adoption of its new slogan. Fourth, SportFuel al‐\nludes to a falling out between Gatorade and Burns, suggesting\nthat Gatorade adopted the new slogan to settle an old score.\n SportFuel alleges that Gatorade’s bad faith is demon‐\nstrated by the fact that it began to use “Sports Fuel” even\nthough it knew of SportFuel’s mark. But the defendant’s\n\fNo. 18‐3010 15\n\n\n“mere knowledge” of the plaintiff’s mark, without other evi‐\ndence of subjective bad faith, is insufficient. Sorensen, 792 F.3d\nat 725. Accordingly, “[t]o survive summary judgment, a\nplaintiff must point to something more that suggests subjec‐\ntive bad faith.” Id. Therefore, without other, substantial evi‐\ndence, this factor provides no support for the claim that Ga‐\ntorade used “Sports Fuel” in bad faith.\n SportFuel also points to Gatorade’s continued use of\n“Sports Fuel,” even after SportFuel filed this suit. But “it is\nlawful to use a mark that does not infringe some other; inten‐\ntional infringement creates problems, but [a defendant’s] in‐\ntentional use of a mark that [it] had every right to use is not\nitself a ground on which to draw an adverse inference.” M‐F‐\nG Corp. v. EMRA Corp., 817 F.2d 410, 412 (7th Cir. 1987). Ga‐\ntorade believed it had every right to use “Sports Fuel” in a\ndescriptive sense, so its continued use after SportFuel filed\nsuit also fails to justify an inference of bad faith.\n Third, SportFuel suggests that Gatorade failed to produce\nevidence in discovery that must have existed. Specifically, Ga‐\ntorade’s production included no documentation related to its\napproval of the slogan “Gatorade The Sports Fuel Company.”\nSportFuel argues that a company as large as Gatorade cer‐\ntainly required high‐level approval before adopting a nation‐\nwide rebranding campaign. And presumably Gatorade\nwould possess documentation of that approval. Yet, “[s]pecu‐\nlation will not suffice” to defeat summary judgment. Borcky v.\nMaytag Corp., 248 F.3d 691, 695 (7th Cir. 2001); Amadio v. Ford\nMotor Co., 238 F.3d 919, 927 (7th Cir. 2001) (“It is well‐settled\nthat speculation may not be used to manufacture a genuine\nissue of fact.”); Gorbitz v. Corvilla, Inc., 196 F.3d 879, 882 (7th\nCir.1999). SportFuel’s argument relies on the assumption that\n\f16 No. 18‐3010\n\n\nsomething must have existed. But the time to pursue this idea\nwas during discovery. SportFuel did not, and it cannot now\navoid summary judgment with assumption or speculation.\nThe record neither provides evidence to support the claim\nthat Gatorade adopted the slogan in bad faith, nor indicates\nthat Gatorade purposefully failed to produce such evidence.\n Fourth, SportFuel suggests that Gatorade’s adoption of\nthe slogan relates to a falling out between Burns and Ga‐\ntorade. The problem with this claim—much like the last argu‐\nment—is that SportFuel provides no relevant evidence as sup‐\nport. It relies on Burns’s deposition testimony, where she\nstated that her relationship with Gatorade ended after she re‐\nfused to endorse one of Gatorade’s new sugary sports bar\nproducts. However, Burns’s relationship with Gatorade\nended more than a decade before the alleged infringement be‐\ngan. And the idea that a new slogan for a nation‐wide re‐\nbranding campaign and stale antipathy towards Burns are\nconnected is facially incredible when otherwise unsupported\nby the record.\n We accordingly find none of these factors significant\nenough—individually or in the aggregate—to create an infer‐\nence of Gatorade’s bad faith.\n 2. The Risk of Reverse Confusion Does Not Demonstrate Ga‐\n torade’s Bad Faith.\n Second, SportFuel claims that the district court conducted\nan insufficient analysis of Gatorade’s intent in using “Sports\nFuel” because its alleged infringement creates reverse confu‐\nsion. “Reverse confusion occurs when a large junior user sat‐\nurates the market with a trademark similar or identical to that\nof a smaller, senior user. In such a case, the junior user does\n\fNo. 18‐3010 17\n\n\nnot seek to profit from the good will associated with the sen‐\nior user’s mark.” Quaker Oats, 978 F.2d at 957. We previously\nexplained that reverse confusion nonetheless harms the sen‐\nior user because “[t]he public comes to assume that the senior\nuser’s products are really the junior user’s or that the former\nhas become somehow connected to the latter.” Id. (quoting\nAmeritech, Inc. v. Am. Info. Tech. Corp., 811 F.2d 960, 964 (6th\nCir. 1987)). As a result, “the senior user loses the value of the\ntrademark—its product identity, corporate identity, control\nover its goodwill and reputation, and ability to move into new\nmarkets.” Id. In this case, the alleged reverse confusion would\noccur when Gatorade used its house mark alongside the term\n“Sports Fuel,” which would effectively coopt SportFuel’s\ntrademark and confuse consumers by leading them to believe\nthe companies were related.\n We cannot agree that the district court erred because it de‐\nclined to examine Gatorade’s intent in using “Sports Fuel.” In\nQuaker Oats, we explained that intent is largely irrelevant in\nreverse confusion cases because “the defendant by definition\nis not palming off or otherwise attempting to create confusion\nas to the source of his product.” Id. at 961 (emphasis in origi‐\nnal); but see Marketquest Grp., Inc. v. BIC Corp., 862 F.3d 927,\n937 (9th Cir. 2017) (applying the Ninth Circuit’s test that ana‐\nlyzes intent).\n But even if it were appropriate to examine Gatorade’s in‐\ntent in using “Sports Fuel” in its slogan, SportFuel’s argument\nwould fail. Gatorade provided evidence showing that it\nadopted the slogan to reflect its various types of sports fuel\nproducts. At the same time, SportFuel neither provides nor\nidentifies substantive evidence to support the notion that Ga‐\ntorade adopted its slogan in any spirit other than good faith.\n\f18 No. 18‐3010\n\n\n\n\n 3. Gatorade Uses “Sports Fuel” Descriptively.\n SportFuel lastly urges that Gatorade views the slogan as a\ntrademark and therefore used “Sports Fuel” unfairly and in\nbad faith. As mentioned above, SportFuel supports this argu‐\nment by pointing out that Gatorade adorns its slogan with a\n“TM.” SportFuel also relies on testimony by Gatorade’s chief\nmarketing officer, in which he stated that he viewed the entire\nslogan, “Gatorade The Sports Fuel Company” as a trademark.\nFor the reasons mentioned earlier in this opinion, we believe\nGatorade employed the term “Sports Fuel” descriptively and\nnot as a trademark. We therefore do not accept that Gatorade\nused the slogan unfairly or in bad faith.\n Further, it is clear from the record that Gatorade provided\nsufficient evidence that it used the term “Sports Fuel” fairly\nand in good faith. Gatorade’s stated purpose in adopting the\nchallenged slogan was to help the company better describe its\nbusiness and the products it sells. Nothing in the record actu‐\nally contradicts this purpose. Gatorade produced evidence\ndemonstrating that the company and its employees view\nthemselves as producers of sports fuels. Moreover, Gatorade\nboth specifically disclaimed exclusive use of the phrase “The\nSports Fuel Company” and prominently used its house mark\nand G Bolt logo in a manner distinct from the slogan.\n III. CONCLUSION\n For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district\ncourt is AFFIRMED.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: SportFuel, Inc. v. PepsiCo, Inc.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-08-02\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18‐3010\\nSPORTFUEL, INC.,\\n Plaintiff‐Appellant,\\n v.\\n\\nPEPSICO, INC. and\\nTHE GATORADE COMPANY,\\n Defendants‐Appellees.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 16‐cv‐7868 — Matthew F. Kennelly, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED APRIL 9, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 2, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before KANNE, BARRETT, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\\n KANNE, Circuit Judge. SportFuel appeals the district court’s\\ngrant of summary judgment for Gatorade and its parent com‐\\npany, PepsiCo. SportFuel brought this suit against Gatorade\\nalleging violations of its trademark after Gatorade rebranded\\nitself with the slogan, “Gatorade The Sports Fuel Company.”\\nThe district court deemed Gatorade’s slogan a fair use pro‐\\ntected by the Lanham Act. We affirm.\\n\\f2 No. 18‐3010\\n\\n\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n SportFuel is a Chicago‐based sports nutrition and well‐\\nness consulting firm whose clients include several of Chi‐\\ncago’s prominent professional sports teams and their athletes.\\nThe company provides personalized nutrition consulting ser‐\\nvices to professional and amateur athletes, but also sells\\nSportFuel‐branded dietary supplements. SportFuel holds two\\nregistered trademarks for “SportFuel.” It registered the first\\nfor “food nutrition consultation, nutrition counseling, and\\nproviding information about dietary supplements and nutri‐\\ntion.” After several years of use, SportFuel’s trademark be‐\\ncame “incontestable” in 2013 under 15 U.S.C. § 1065. Sport‐\\nFuel also registered a trademark in 2015 for “goods and ser‐\\nvices related to dietary supplements and sports drinks en‐\\nhanced with vitamins.”\\n Gatorade was created in 1965 at the University of Florida\\nCollege of Medicine and public sales began several years later.\\nUndoubtedly, Gatorade is more widely known. It is the offi‐\\ncial sports drink of the NBA, PGA, MLB, MLS, and many\\nother professional and collegiate organizations. Whether by\\ntelevision imagery of victorious athletes drenching their\\ncoaches or teammates with a Gatorade shower from a distinc‐\\ntive cooler, or through aggressive national media marketing\\ncampaigns, Gatorade became a household name.\\n In addition to its traditional sports drinks, Gatorade now\\ncustomizes its sports drink line by selling formulas that are\\ntailored to the nutritional needs of individual professional\\nathletes. The company also sells numerous other sports nutri‐\\ntion products beyond sports drinks. It began to publicly de‐\\nscribe its products as sports fuels in 2013. Seeking to broaden\\nits public image to reflect its expanded variety of products,\\n\\fNo. 18‐3010 3\\n\\n\\nGatorade began a rebranding effort. In 2016 it registered the\\ntrademark “Gatorade The Sports Fuel Company” with the\\nUnited States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”). Notably,\\nGatorade disclaimed the exclusive use of “The Sports Fuel\\nCompany” after the PTO advised the company that the\\nphrase was merely descriptive of its products.\\n The only link between SportFuel and Gatorade is a nutri‐\\ntionist and dietician named Julie Burns, who founded Sport‐\\nFuel in 1993. Burns had a history of working with Gatorade:\\nshe served as a nutritionist on the Gatorade Sports Science In‐\\nstitute’s Sports Nutrition Advisory Board from 1995 until\\n2003. Burns became aware of Gatorade’s rebranding efforts\\nand the alleged trademark infringement when she saw a Ga‐\\ntorade commercial featuring the new slogan. SportFuel filed\\nsuit against Gatorade and PepsiCo in August 2016. Its com‐\\nplaint alleged trademark infringement (15 U.S.C. § 1051), un‐\\nfair competition, and false designation of origin in violation\\nof the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)). Similarly, SportFuel\\nasserted claims of trademark infringement and unfair compe‐\\ntition in violation of Illinois law. See 815 Ill. Comp. Stat.\\n§§ 505/1, 510/1. Gatorade raised counterclaims for a cancella‐\\ntion of SportFuel’s trademark.\\n Gatorade moved to exclude SportFuel’s expert’s testi‐\\nmony and survey evidence concerning the likelihood of con‐\\nsumer confusion from Gatorade’s use of the slogan. Gatorade\\nalso moved for summary judgment on two grounds. First, it\\nargued that SportFuel failed to provide evidence that allowed\\na jury to find a likelihood of confusion—a necessary element\\nto each of SportFuel’s claims. Second, Gatorade argued that\\nthe Lanham Act protected its use of “Sports Fuel” as a fair use.\\n\\f4 No. 18‐3010\\n\\n\\n On June 14, 2018, the district court granted Gatorade’s mo‐\\ntion for summary judgment after finding that SportFuel failed\\nto produce evidence that demonstrated a factual dispute on\\nany of the three elements of Gatorade’s fair use defense. The\\ncourt also determined that because it found that Gatorade\\nsuccessfully raised the Act’s fair use defense, it need not con‐\\nduct a risk of confusion analysis for SportFuel’s claims. Simi‐\\nlarly, because the court determined that SportFuel’s claims\\nunder Illinois law were subject to the same analysis as its fed‐\\neral claims, it did not separately consider those claims. Sport‐\\nFuel appeals.\\n II. ANALYSIS\\n We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment\\nde novo, viewing all facts in SportFuel’s favor. Georgia‐Pac.\\nConsumer Prods. LP v. Kimberly‐Clark Corp., 647 F.3d 723, 727\\n(7th Cir. 2011). A district court may award summary judg‐\\nment when the evidence shows that “there is no genuine dis‐\\npute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judg‐\\nment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).\\n The Trademark Act of 1946, commonly known as the Lan‐\\nham Act, “federalized” the common law’s trademark protec‐\\ntions. CAE, Inc. v. Clean Air Eng’g, Inc., 267 F.3d 660, 672 (7th\\nCir. 2001). The Lanham Act allows those who employ trade or\\nservice marks to register them for exclusive use in commerce.\\nKP Permanent Make‐Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression I, Inc., 543\\nU.S. 111, 117 (2004). A trademark holder’s right becomes “in‐\\ncontestable” five years after initial registration with the PTO\\nif the holder meets certain conditions. Id.; 15 U.S.C. § 1065.\\n “The holder of a registered mark … has a civil action\\nagainst anyone employing an imitation of it in commerce\\n\\fNo. 18‐3010 5\\n\\n\\nwhen ‘such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mis‐\\ntake, or to deceive.’” KP Permanent Make‐Up, 543 U.S. at 117\\n(quoting 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)(a)). Additionally, the Act pro‐\\nvides trademark‐holders a cause of action against those who\\nmake a false designation of origin for a mark. 15\\nU.S.C. § 1125(a). “To prevail on either claim, a plaintiff must\\nestablish that (1) its mark is protectable and (2) the defend‐\\nant’s use of the mark is likely to cause confusion among con‐\\nsumers.” CAE, Inc., 267 F.3d at 673–74.\\n However, the Lanham Act provides several affirmative\\ndefenses to a plaintiff’s claims, including the “fair use” de‐\\nfense. See 15 U.S.C. § 1115(b). The fair use defense is available\\nagainst even incontestable trademarks, like SportFuel’s.\\nSorensen v. WD‐40 Co., 792 F.3d 712, 722 (7th Cir. 2015). The\\ndefense allows individuals to use otherwise trademarked lan‐\\nguage in a descriptive sense. See Packman v. Chi. Tribune Co.,\\n267 F.3d 628, 639 (7th Cir. 2001); Sunmark, Inc. v. Ocean Spray\\nCranberries, Inc., 64 F.3d 1055, 1058 (7th Cir. 1995). “[A] de‐\\nfendant in a trademark infringement action may invoke the\\nfair use defense by demonstrating that the alleged infringe‐\\nment, ‘is a use, otherwise than as a mark … which is descrip‐\\ntive of and used fairly and in good faith only to describe the\\ngoods or services of such party.’” Sorensen, 792 F.3d at 722\\n(quoting 15 U.S.C. § 1115(b)(4)). In short, to raise the fair use\\ndefense successfully, Gatorade must show that (1) it did not\\nuse “Sports Fuel” as a trademark, (2) the use is descriptive of\\nits goods, and (3) it used the mark fairly and in good faith.\\nSorensen, 792 F.3d at 722; Packman, 267 F.3d at 639. The district\\ncourt determined that Gatorade met all three prongs.\\n On appeal, SportFuel challenges the district court’s con‐\\nclusions on all three prongs of the fair use defense. We review\\n\\f6 No. 18‐3010\\n\\n\\neach prong in turn. However, because we conclude that Ga‐\\ntorade successfully raised a fair use defense against Sport‐\\nFuel’s claims, we do not consider whether Gatorade’s use of\\nthe slogan presented a risk of confusion to SportFuel’s mark.\\n A. Gatorade Did Not Use “Sports Fuel” As a Trademark.\\n SportFuel claims that the district court erred in finding\\nthat Gatorade did not use the term “Sports Fuel” as a trade‐\\nmark. SportFuel supports its argument with three factors: Ga‐\\ntorade uses the slogan as an “attention getting symbol,” it\\nplaced a trademark indication after the slogan, and it sought\\nto trademark the slogan.\\n Words or phrases function as trademarks “when [they are]\\nused by a source of a product to identify itself to the public as\\nthe source of its product and to create in the public conscious‐\\nness an awareness of the uniqueness of the source and of its\\nproducts.” Sorensen, 792 F.3d at 722–23 (quoting Sands, Taylor\\n& Wood Co. v. Quaker Oats Co., 978 F.2d 947, 953 (7th Cir.\\n1992)). Product packaging can include more than one source\\nindicator. Sorensen, 792 F.3d at 723. We look to multiple factors\\nin how a defendant employs a challenged term or phrase to\\ndetermine whether it serves as a source indicator and there‐\\nfore is used as a trademark. Our decision in Quaker Oats is\\nparticularly helpful to illustrate this point.\\n As here, Quaker Oats involved a suit over Gatorade’s use\\nof a slogan in an advertising campaign. 978 F.2d at 953–54.\\nThat campaign used the trademarked phrase “Thirst Aid” in\\n\\fNo. 18‐3010 7\\n\\n\\nthe slogan “Gatorade is THIRST AID.”1 Id. There, the district\\ncourt determined that although Gatorade used its house mark\\nin addition to the slogan, the term “Thirst Aid” also served as\\na source indicator. Id. at 953. The district court emphasized\\nthat Gatorade featured the term “Thirst Aid” prominently on\\nits product packaging—even more prominently than the Ga‐\\ntorade house mark. Gatorade appealed summary judgment in\\nthe plaintiff’s favor, arguing that it used the term “Thirst Aid”\\ndescriptively and not as a trademark. Id.\\n We affirmed and explained that although Gatorade used\\n“Thirst Aid” in tandem with its house mark, it used the term\\nas an “attention‐getting symbol.” Id. at 954. We observed that\\nthe “Gatorade is Thirst Aid” phrase employed a rhyming\\nplay‐on‐words and that Gatorade featured the slogan in\\nlarger, more noticeable font than the house mark. Id. We con‐\\nsequently determined that Gatorade’s use of the slogan\\nwould likely lead consumers to associate the terms “Thirst\\nAid” and “Gatorade,” and that such a use of “Thirst Aid” was\\nmeant to help consumers identify the source of the product.\\nId. These factors supported the district court’s conclusion that\\nGatorade used the phrase as a trademark. Id.\\n In this case, however, the record does not support the no‐\\ntion that Gatorade used the term “Sports Fuel” as a source in‐\\ndicator. Because visuals help considerably in trademark cases,\\nwe include the following photographs included in the parties’\\nbriefs of Gatorade’s use of the slogan:\\n\\n\\n\\n 1 Although the full slogan declared, “Gatorade is THIRST AID for\\nThat Deep Down Body Thirst,” Gatorade’s advertisements and the ensu‐\\ning litigation focused on the first portion. 978 F.2d at 950.\\n\\f8 No. 18‐3010\\n\\fNo. 18‐3010 9\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n As in Quaker Oats, here Gatorade used the term “Sports\\nFuel” in conjunction with its house mark. But the similarities\\nend there. The products’ individual packaging and displays\\nfeature Gatorade’s house mark and G Bolt logo more promi‐\\nnently. Gatorade rarely uses the term “Sports Fuel” directly\\non product packaging, except for where the company labeled\\na “Sports Fuel Drink” with the term. Instead, it primarily fea‐\\ntures the slogan on in‐store displays and other advertise‐\\nments—appearing almost as a subtitle to the house mark. Ad‐\\nditionally, the “Sports Fuel” slogan lacks the catchy, rhyming\\nplay‐on‐words at issue in Quaker Oats. Nothing about Ga‐\\ntorade’s use in this context suggests that consumers would\\nview “Sports Fuel” as a source indicator.\\n SportFuel emphasizes that Gatorade employed a “TM”\\nsymbol with the slogan and obtained a trademark for the slo‐\\ngan. But these facts fail to support SportFuel’s desired conclu‐\\nsion. The slogan notably included Gatorade’s trademark‐pro‐\\ntected house mark. Additionally, Gatorade specifically dis‐\\nclaimed exclusive use of the phrase “The Sports Fuel Com‐\\npany” in its trademark application for “Gatorade The Sports\\nFuel Company.” Sunmark, 64 F.3d at 1059 (noting that Ocean\\nSpray disclaimed exclusive use of a contested, descriptive\\nphrase). During the application process for Gatorade’s slogan,\\n\\f10 No. 18‐3010\\n\\n\\nthe PTO specifically advised Gatorade that it viewed the term\\n“Sports Fuel” as descriptive and therefore inappropriate for\\ntrademark use. And as the district court pointed out, Ga‐\\ntorade’s chief marketing officer stated in his deposition that\\nhe viewed the whole phrase—including the protected house\\nmark—as a trademark.\\n Thus, even construing the record in SportFuel’s favor on\\nsummary judgment, insufficient evidence supports Sport‐\\nFuel’s claim. Accordingly, we do not believe the district court\\nerred in determining that Gatorade never employed the term\\n“Sports Fuel” as a trademark in its “Gatorade The Sports Fuel\\nCompany” slogan.\\n B. Gatorade Used “Sports Fuel” Descriptively.\\n The district court also found that Gatorade used “Sports\\nFuel” descriptively, rather than suggestively, and therefore\\nnot as a trademark. SportFuel maintains that the district court\\nerred in this determination. We review the district court’s\\nclassification de novo. Quaker Oats, 978 F.2d at 952. “Inherent\\ndistinctiveness is a question of fact, and summary judgment\\nis appropriate only if, reading the record in [SportFuel’s] fa‐\\nvor, no reasonable factfinder could decide for it.” Uncommon,\\nLLC v. Spigen, Inc., 926 F.3d 409, 420 (7th Cir. 2019).\\n Trademark law awards trademark protection to various\\ncategories of words, terms, and phrases if consumers rely on\\nthose marks to identify and distinguish one company’s goods\\nor services from those of others. Platinum Home Mort. Corp. v.\\nPlatinum Fin. Grp., Inc., 149 F.3d 722, 727 (7th Cir. 1998).\\n“Marks are classified into five categories of increasing distinc‐\\ntiveness: (1) generic, (2) descriptive, (3) suggestive, (4) arbi‐\\ntrary, and (5) fanciful.” Id. Generally, trademark law does not\\n\\fNo. 18‐3010 11\\n\\n\\nallow sellers to register marks for terms that are generic or\\ndescriptive of products or services. Custom Vehicles, Inc. v. For‐\\nest River, Inc., 476 F.3d 481, 483 (7th Cir. 2007). We previously\\nexplained that this rule prevents sellers from branding their\\nproduct with a name or term that the public uses to identify\\nthe category of items. Id. An exception to this general rule is\\nthat “[d]escriptive terms … are protectable as a trademark if\\nthey have developed secondary meaning.” Sorensen, 792 F.3d\\nat 723. But a descriptive term only acquires a secondary mean‐\\ning after most consumers think of the term as the name of the\\nproduct instead of as descriptive of the product. Packman, 267\\nF.3d at 639.\\n Conversely, the law affords automatic protection to sug‐\\ngestive, arbitrary, and fanciful terms, which are inherently\\ndistinctive. Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763, 768\\n(1992); Platinum Home Mortg., 149 F.3d at 727. We recently\\nnoted that “[t]he line between descriptiveness and sugges‐\\ntiveness can be difficult to draw.” Uncommon, 926 F.3d at 421.\\n “A mark is descriptive when ‘it describes the product cat‐\\negory to which the brand belongs.’” Id. (quoting Custom Vehi‐\\ncles, 476 F.3d at 483. Descriptive phrases refer to a characteris‐\\ntic of the product. Quaker Oats, 978 F.2d at 953. But they need\\nnot be common phrases. Id.\\n Suggestive marks, on the other hand, do not “directly and\\nimmediately describe an aspect of the goods,” rather they “re‐\\nquire[] an observer or listener to use imagination and percep‐\\ntion to determine the nature of the goods.” Uncommon, 926\\nF.3d at 421 (quotations omitted). However, just because a\\nphrase is unfamiliar and “requires a hearer to think about its\\nmeaning” does not necessarily mean it is suggestive. Quaker\\nOats, 978 F.2d at 953. Courts look to a variety of factors to\\n\\f12 No. 18‐3010\\n\\n\\ndistinguish between descriptive and suggestive terminology,\\nbut we find two factors particularly helpful in this instance.2\\n“First, we can look to how, and how often, the relevant market\\nuses the word [or phrase] in question.” Uncommon, 926 F.3d\\nat 421. Second, we employ the “imagination test,” where we\\nask whether the word or phrase imparts information about\\nthe product or service directly or rather requires “some oper‐\\nation of the imagination to connect it with the goods.” Id. at\\n422 (quoting Platinum Home Mortg., 149 F.3d at 727). Both fac‐\\ntors lead us to characterize the slogan here as descriptive.\\n First, producers of nutritional products for athletes regu‐\\nlarly invoke the “Sports Fuel” terminology to describe the\\nproducts they sell. Gatorade provided numerous examples of\\nthis widespread industry use to the district court, including,\\nfor example, Twin Laboratories’ “SPORT FUEL” and Trident\\nSports’ “SPORTS FUEL.” Similarly, the PTO recognized this\\npoint when it processed Gatorade’s trademark application\\nstating, “[a]s SPORTS FUEL is commonly used in reference to\\nsports nutrition, consumers encountering the wording THE\\nSPORTS FUEL COMPANY in the proposed mark would\\nreadily understand it to mean that the goods are provided by\\na company that provides sports nutrition.” This widespread\\nindustry use, coupled with Gatorade’s disclaimer of exclusive\\nuse of “The Sports Fuel Company,” supports Gatorade’s ar‐\\ngument it used “Sports Fuel” descriptively.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 2\\n Courts also occasionally find dictionary definitions and third‐party\\npatent registrations probative of whether a term or phrase is descriptive.\\nSee Uncommon, 926 F.3d at 422‐23.\\n\\fNo. 18‐3010 13\\n\\n\\n Second, SportFuel argues that Gatorade’s use of “Sports\\nFuel” is suggestive—and not descriptive—of Gatorade’s\\nproducts because the term requires a mental leap to deduce\\nthat the company is really selling athletic nutrition products.\\nTo support this notion, SportFuel also points out that Ga‐\\ntorade’s consumers, by and large, are not high‐performance\\nathletes. We find these arguments unpersuasive. The use of\\n“Sports Fuel” in “Gatorade The Sports Fuel Company” clearly\\ndescribes the category of goods that Gatorade produces. It re‐\\nquires no imaginative leap to understand that a company sell‐\\ning “Sports Fuel” is selling a variety of food products de‐\\nsigned for athletes. That non‐athletes regularly consume Ga‐\\ntorade’s products has no bearing whether the term is descrip‐\\ntive. Just as the pervasive use of yoga pants and other active‐\\nwear as casual clothing does not change the athletic charac‐\\nteristics of those products, the fact that Gatorade sells more\\nsports drinks to average joes who limit their rigorous exercise\\nto lawn mowing does not change the athletic characteristics\\nof Gatorade’s products.\\n We conclude that Gatorade’s slogan uses “Sports Fuel” in\\na descriptive sense.\\n C. Gatorade Uses “Sports Fuel” Fairly and in Good Faith.\\n A party raising a fair use defense “must show that it used\\nthe plaintiff’s mark fairly and in good faith.” Sorensen, 792\\nF.3d at 725. Courts determine defendants’ good faith by look‐\\ning to their subjective purpose in using a slogan. Packman, 267\\nF.3d at 642. As an initial matter, we note that although the dis‐\\ntrict court’s analysis implicitly confirmed that Gatorade used\\n“Sport Fuel” in good faith, it never stated its conclusion ex‐\\nplicitly. Nonetheless, as we explain, we believe Gatorade pro‐\\nduced sufficient evidence to show that it descriptively used\\n\\f14 No. 18‐3010\\n\\n\\nthe term “Sports Fuel” in its slogan fairly and in good faith.\\nSportFuel insisted during summary judgment that the evi‐\\ndence, construed in its favor, demonstrated that Gatorade\\nacted unfairly and in bad faith by using its slogan. But the dis‐\\ntrict court rejected SportFuel’s argument and explained why\\nSportFuel failed to show that Gatorade acted in bad faith.\\n On appeal, SportFuel challenges the district court’s con‐\\nclusion for three reasons. First, SportFuel claims that evidence\\nproduced during discovery justified inferring bad faith on\\nGatorade’s part. Second, the district court purportedly erred\\nin concluding that Gatorade used “Sports Fuel” fairly given\\nthe risk that reverse confusion posed to SportFuel. Third, Ga‐\\ntorade uses “Sports Fuel” in a trademark manner, beyond de‐\\nscribing its goods or services.\\n 1. SportFuel Provides Insufficient Evidence of Gatorade’s Bad\\n Faith.\\n SportFuel alleges that the district court erred because it\\nnever properly considered evidence of Gatorade’s bad faith.\\nIt provides four main examples to support this argument.\\nFirst, it argues that Gatorade was aware of SportFuel’s mark\\nby virtue of Gatorade’s previous working relationship with\\nJulie Burns. Second, it suggests that Gatorade’s continued use\\nof “Sports Fuel” after SportFuel filed suit betrays its bad faith.\\nThird, SportFuel points to a dearth of evidence concerning\\nGatorade’s adoption of its new slogan. Fourth, SportFuel al‐\\nludes to a falling out between Gatorade and Burns, suggesting\\nthat Gatorade adopted the new slogan to settle an old score.\\n SportFuel alleges that Gatorade’s bad faith is demon‐\\nstrated by the fact that it began to use “Sports Fuel” even\\nthough it knew of SportFuel’s mark. But the defendant’s\\n\\fNo. 18‐3010 15\\n\\n\\n“mere knowledge” of the plaintiff’s mark, without other evi‐\\ndence of subjective bad faith, is insufficient. Sorensen, 792 F.3d\\nat 725. Accordingly, “[t]o survive summary judgment, a\\nplaintiff must point to something more that suggests subjec‐\\ntive bad faith.” Id. Therefore, without other, substantial evi‐\\ndence, this factor provides no support for the claim that Ga‐\\ntorade used “Sports Fuel” in bad faith.\\n SportFuel also points to Gatorade’s continued use of\\n“Sports Fuel,” even after SportFuel filed this suit. But “it is\\nlawful to use a mark that does not infringe some other; inten‐\\ntional infringement creates problems, but [a defendant’s] in‐\\ntentional use of a mark that [it] had every right to use is not\\nitself a ground on which to draw an adverse inference.” M‐F‐\\nG Corp. v. EMRA Corp., 817 F.2d 410, 412 (7th Cir. 1987). Ga‐\\ntorade believed it had every right to use “Sports Fuel” in a\\ndescriptive sense, so its continued use after SportFuel filed\\nsuit also fails to justify an inference of bad faith.\\n Third, SportFuel suggests that Gatorade failed to produce\\nevidence in discovery that must have existed. Specifically, Ga‐\\ntorade’s production included no documentation related to its\\napproval of the slogan “Gatorade The Sports Fuel Company.”\\nSportFuel argues that a company as large as Gatorade cer‐\\ntainly required high‐level approval before adopting a nation‐\\nwide rebranding campaign. And presumably Gatorade\\nwould possess documentation of that approval. Yet, “[s]pecu‐\\nlation will not suffice” to defeat summary judgment. Borcky v.\\nMaytag Corp., 248 F.3d 691, 695 (7th Cir. 2001); Amadio v. Ford\\nMotor Co., 238 F.3d 919, 927 (7th Cir. 2001) (“It is well‐settled\\nthat speculation may not be used to manufacture a genuine\\nissue of fact.”); Gorbitz v. Corvilla, Inc., 196 F.3d 879, 882 (7th\\nCir.1999). SportFuel’s argument relies on the assumption that\\n\\f16 No. 18‐3010\\n\\n\\nsomething must have existed. But the time to pursue this idea\\nwas during discovery. SportFuel did not, and it cannot now\\navoid summary judgment with assumption or speculation.\\nThe record neither provides evidence to support the claim\\nthat Gatorade adopted the slogan in bad faith, nor indicates\\nthat Gatorade purposefully failed to produce such evidence.\\n Fourth, SportFuel suggests that Gatorade’s adoption of\\nthe slogan relates to a falling out between Burns and Ga‐\\ntorade. The problem with this claim—much like the last argu‐\\nment—is that SportFuel provides no relevant evidence as sup‐\\nport. It relies on Burns’s deposition testimony, where she\\nstated that her relationship with Gatorade ended after she re‐\\nfused to endorse one of Gatorade’s new sugary sports bar\\nproducts. However, Burns’s relationship with Gatorade\\nended more than a decade before the alleged infringement be‐\\ngan. And the idea that a new slogan for a nation‐wide re‐\\nbranding campaign and stale antipathy towards Burns are\\nconnected is facially incredible when otherwise unsupported\\nby the record.\\n We accordingly find none of these factors significant\\nenough—individually or in the aggregate—to create an infer‐\\nence of Gatorade’s bad faith.\\n 2. The Risk of Reverse Confusion Does Not Demonstrate Ga‐\\n torade’s Bad Faith.\\n Second, SportFuel claims that the district court conducted\\nan insufficient analysis of Gatorade’s intent in using “Sports\\nFuel” because its alleged infringement creates reverse confu‐\\nsion. “Reverse confusion occurs when a large junior user sat‐\\nurates the market with a trademark similar or identical to that\\nof a smaller, senior user. In such a case, the junior user does\\n\\fNo. 18‐3010 17\\n\\n\\nnot seek to profit from the good will associated with the sen‐\\nior user’s mark.” Quaker Oats, 978 F.2d at 957. We previously\\nexplained that reverse confusion nonetheless harms the sen‐\\nior user because “[t]he public comes to assume that the senior\\nuser’s products are really the junior user’s or that the former\\nhas become somehow connected to the latter.” Id. (quoting\\nAmeritech, Inc. v. Am. Info. Tech. Corp., 811 F.2d 960, 964 (6th\\nCir. 1987)). As a result, “the senior user loses the value of the\\ntrademark—its product identity, corporate identity, control\\nover its goodwill and reputation, and ability to move into new\\nmarkets.” Id. In this case, the alleged reverse confusion would\\noccur when Gatorade used its house mark alongside the term\\n“Sports Fuel,” which would effectively coopt SportFuel’s\\ntrademark and confuse consumers by leading them to believe\\nthe companies were related.\\n We cannot agree that the district court erred because it de‐\\nclined to examine Gatorade’s intent in using “Sports Fuel.” In\\nQuaker Oats, we explained that intent is largely irrelevant in\\nreverse confusion cases because “the defendant by definition\\nis not palming off or otherwise attempting to create confusion\\nas to the source of his product.” Id. at 961 (emphasis in origi‐\\nnal); but see Marketquest Grp., Inc. v. BIC Corp., 862 F.3d 927,\\n937 (9th Cir. 2017) (applying the Ninth Circuit’s test that ana‐\\nlyzes intent).\\n But even if it were appropriate to examine Gatorade’s in‐\\ntent in using “Sports Fuel” in its slogan, SportFuel’s argument\\nwould fail. Gatorade provided evidence showing that it\\nadopted the slogan to reflect its various types of sports fuel\\nproducts. At the same time, SportFuel neither provides nor\\nidentifies substantive evidence to support the notion that Ga‐\\ntorade adopted its slogan in any spirit other than good faith.\\n\\f18 No. 18‐3010\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 3. Gatorade Uses “Sports Fuel” Descriptively.\\n SportFuel lastly urges that Gatorade views the slogan as a\\ntrademark and therefore used “Sports Fuel” unfairly and in\\nbad faith. As mentioned above, SportFuel supports this argu‐\\nment by pointing out that Gatorade adorns its slogan with a\\n“TM.” SportFuel also relies on testimony by Gatorade’s chief\\nmarketing officer, in which he stated that he viewed the entire\\nslogan, “Gatorade The Sports Fuel Company” as a trademark.\\nFor the reasons mentioned earlier in this opinion, we believe\\nGatorade employed the term “Sports Fuel” descriptively and\\nnot as a trademark. We therefore do not accept that Gatorade\\nused the slogan unfairly or in bad faith.\\n Further, it is clear from the record that Gatorade provided\\nsufficient evidence that it used the term “Sports Fuel” fairly\\nand in good faith. Gatorade’s stated purpose in adopting the\\nchallenged slogan was to help the company better describe its\\nbusiness and the products it sells. Nothing in the record actu‐\\nally contradicts this purpose. Gatorade produced evidence\\ndemonstrating that the company and its employees view\\nthemselves as producers of sports fuels. Moreover, Gatorade\\nboth specifically disclaimed exclusive use of the phrase “The\\nSports Fuel Company” and prominently used its house mark\\nand G Bolt logo in a manner distinct from the slogan.\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district\\ncourt is AFFIRMED.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3781,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4645466,"string":"4,645,466"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Marcus Torry v. City of Chicago"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-08-02"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-1935"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before KANNE, BARRETT, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"BARRETT, Circuit Judge\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-1935\\nMARCUS D. TORRY, LATRELL Q. GOSS,\\nand WILLIAM I. ROBERTS,\\n Plaintiffs-Appellants,\\n\\n v.\\n\\nCITY OF CHICAGO, et al.,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 1:15-cv-8383 — John Robert Blakey, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED APRIL 9, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 2, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before KANNE, BARRETT, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\\n BARRETT, Circuit Judge. One afternoon in 2014, three Chi-\\ncago police officers stopped three black men in a grey sedan\\nto investigate a nearby shooting that had happened a few\\nhours earlier. When the passengers sued the officers a year\\nlater, none of the officers remembered the Terry stop. Lacking\\nrecall, they relied on other evidence to show that reasonable\\nsuspicion had existed for it. Cell phone footage taken by one\\n\\f2 No. 18-1935\\n\\nof the plaintiffs during the encounter depicted Sergeant Rob-\\nert King, the officer who initiated the stop, citing the plain-\\ntiffs’ suspicious behavior in the area of the shooting as the rea-\\nson that he had pulled them over. And a police report showed\\nthat dispatches to officers investigating the shooting, includ-\\ning King, identified the suspects as three black men in a grey\\ncar. The descriptions of the car’s model varied, and none was\\nan exact match for the car that the plaintiffs were driving. But\\nreasonable suspicion can exist without an exact match, and\\nthe district court held that these descriptions were close\\nenough to justify the Terry stop. In any event, the court said,\\nthe officers were entitled to qualified immunity because the\\nstop did not violate clearly established law.\\n Before us, the plaintiffs have repeatedly suggested that the\\ndefendants’ failure of memory is a concession of liability. In\\nother words, they maintain that if a police officer doesn’t re-\\nmember a stop now, reasonable suspicion could not have jus-\\ntified it at the time. But the Fourth Amendment does not gov-\\nern how an officer proves that he had reasonable suspicion for\\na Terry stop; he can rely on evidence other than his memory\\nto establish what he knew when the stop occurred. The police\\nreport demonstrates that King knew that the suspects in the\\nshooting had been identified as three black men driving a\\ngrey car, and the cell-phone video shows him giving the\\nshooting as the reason for the stop. We agree with the district\\ncourt that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.\\n I.\\n On the morning of September 23, 2014, a drive-by shoot-\\ning occurred about half a mile from Manley High School,\\nwhich is located on West Polk Street in Chicago. Sergeant\\nRobert King was on duty that day as a “school sergeant”—an\\n\\fNo. 18-1935 3\\n\\nofficer who responds to and investigates violence near\\nschools within his beat. A police report detailing the chronol-\\nogy of events related to the shooting shows that King re-\\nsponded to the shooting and that three descriptions of sus-\\npects were received while he was assisting.1 One identified\\nthe suspects’ vehicle as a newer-model grey Nissan with three\\nblack male occupants. The second was almost identical to the\\nfirst but specified that the Nissan was an SUV. The third iden-\\ntified the shooter as a medium-complected black male wear-\\ning a white t-shirt and driving a grey Trailblazer (a Chevrolet\\nSUV).\\n Shortly past noon on that same day, Marcus Torry and\\nWilliam Roberts picked up Latrell Goss, Torry’s brother, in a\\ngrey Ford Fusion sedan. Goss’s car had broken down on West\\nPolk Street; Torry and Roberts met him at his car and then\\ndrove him west on West Polk to an auto parts store. They\\npassed Manley High School as they drove to the store, and\\nthey passed it again when they returned the same way. As\\nthey went by the school for the second time, they were pulled\\nover by three police officers—King, Jacek Leja, and Justin Rae-\\nther. Torry captured video of the ensuing encounter on his\\ncell phone camera. Like the district court, we draw our de-\\n\\n\\n 1 This report is from the Office of Emergency Management and Com-\\nmunications and is called a “Chicago Police Department Event Query Re-\\nport.” For simplicity’s sake, we will refer to it as a “police report.” The\\nrecord also contains post-dated supplementary reports that expand on the\\ninformation contained in the police report. The parties dispute the admis-\\nsibility of these supplementary reports, but because they are not necessary\\nto show that King knew about the shooting and suspect descriptions, we\\ndo not address them.\\n\\f4 No. 18-1935\\n\\nscription of the encounter primarily from the video, supple-\\nmenting it with other undisputed facts and drawing all infer-\\nences in the plaintiffs’ favor.2\\n After Torry pulled over, King approached his window\\nand asked for his license and registration. Torry asked why\\nhe had been stopped, and King replied that “this was about\\nyour third pass by this school.” Torry protested that he had\\nnot driven by the school three times and handed over his li-\\ncense and registration. King told him not to argue; Torry de-\\nmanded King’s badge number.\\n King told Torry to step out of the car and reached for the\\nhandle of the driver’s door, which prompted Torry to ask if\\nhe was under arrest. King didn’t directly answer the question\\nbut said, “Sir, get out of the car please. Sir, this is a Terry stop,\\nI have the right to search the car, get out of the car.” Torry,\\nprotesting that he had done nothing wrong, failed to comply\\nwith multiple commands that he exit the vehicle. King told\\nTorry, “If you don’t get out of the car, I will remove you from\\nthe car,” and Torry replied, “I’m gonna remove myself but I\\njust don’t want to get—y’all get me, shoot me, or kill me for\\nsomething I didn’t do wrong.” King responded, “Yes, sir, ab-\\nsolutely; hands up, don’t shoot, there you go.” Neither King\\nnor the other officers had a gun out, but Torry feared police\\nbrutality.\\n Torry testified that when he finally removed his seatbelt,\\nKing “just grab[bed] me out of the car.” King ordered Torry\\nto “come on out, sir,” as Torry repeatedly exclaimed, “Please\\n\\n 2 Neither side contests the admissibility of the video, which the plain-\\ntiffs and defendants introduced as a joint exhibit in the district court. The\\nvideo runs the full length of the stop.\\n\\fNo. 18-1935 5\\n\\ndon’t shoot.” King walked Torry to a squad car, saying, “Let’s\\ngo back to my car, sir, right over here,” and placed him inside.\\nGoss testified that an officer grabbed him out of the car too,\\nbut neither Goss nor Roberts were placed in a squad car. After\\nthe plaintiffs had been repeatedly ordered to leave the car but\\nbefore they had complied, one of the officers shook a can of\\nmace, although he never used it.\\n After placing Torry in the back of his squad car, King sat\\nin the front for a few minutes while he ran Torry’s name\\nthrough a warrant check. Torry demanded to know why he\\nhad been pulled over, and King explained that Torry had\\n“cruised this street here around the school,” which was an\\narea of “safe passage” and “the immediate location of a shoot-\\ning this morning.” (An area of “safe passage” is a designated\\narea where extra precautions are taken to prevent violence\\nthat might affect students on their way to and from school.)\\nKing then returned to Torry’s car, where the officers talked to\\nGoss and Roberts, who testified that the other officers patted\\nthem down and searched Goss’s pockets. Still in the squad\\ncar, Torry yelled obscenities and protests while continuing to\\nfilm with his cell phone camera. At one point, Goss ap-\\nproached the car and told him to be quiet, to which Torry re-\\nsponded, “Leave me alone!”\\n Roughly ten minutes into the stop and eight minutes after\\nputting Torry in the squad car, King retrieved Torry and\\nwalked him back to his own car. Torry asked if he was under\\narrest, to which King answered, “If you were under arrest,\\nyou’d be in handcuffs.” Torry got in his car, and King re-\\nturned his license and registration. Shortly after, one of the\\nofficers said to Goss that “you don’t want anything to do with\\nhim,” and—in response to an unintelligible reply—said,\\n\\f6 No. 18-1935\\n\\n“Yeah, c’mon, jump in the car … yeah we’ll give you a ride\\nhome.” Goss testified that the officers had told him to get in\\ntheir car to return to his disabled car.\\n Free to leave, Torry and Roberts pulled back onto West\\nPolk Street. Torry continued his video recording, narrating\\nthat the officers were driving behind his car. Goss, riding in\\nthe back seat of Leja and Raether’s car, testified that those of-\\nficers debated pulling Torry over again “to mess with him.”\\nBut the officers dropped Goss off at his car and nothing else\\nhappened.\\n One year later, Torry, Goss, and Roberts sued the three\\nofficers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the officers\\nlacked reasonable suspicion to initiate the Terry stop, and that\\neven if the stop was justified, its scope transformed it into a\\nde facto arrest without probable cause.3 By the time the\\nplaintiffs filed suit, none of the officers could recall the stop.\\nNor could King recall any details about the shooting. It was\\nundisputed, though, that the shooting occurred while King\\nwas on duty in that area as a school sergeant, and the police\\nreport detailing the investigation’s chronology reflected that\\nKing responded as an assist vehicle to the shooting, drove\\naround the corner to the victim’s residence a few minutes\\nlater, and continued to assist until 9:49 a.m., when the report\\nnotes him as “clear.” During the hour or so that King was on\\nthe shot call, three suspect descriptions were transmitted to\\ninvestigators: one that identified the suspects’ car as a newer-\\nmodel grey Nissan with three black male occupants, a second\\n\\n\\n 3 The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed other claims that they had as-\\nserted against the officers.\\n\\fNo. 18-1935 7\\n\\nthat was almost identical to the first but specified that the\\nNissan was an SUV,4 and a third that identified the shooter as\\na medium-complected black male wearing a white t-shirt and\\ndriving a grey Trailblazer.\\n Based on that report and his review of Torry’s video, King\\ntestified by affidavit that the dispatches would have alerted\\nhim that the suspects were three black men driving a grey car,\\nand, as the video reflected, that he told Torry—who was driv-\\ning a grey car with three black male occupants—that he had\\nstopped him because of the shooting. The plaintiffs and the\\ndefendants filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and\\nthe district court granted summary judgment to the defend-\\nants.\\n II.\\n The primary theme of the plaintiffs’ argument is that prov-\\ning reasonable suspicion for the stop requires the officers to\\nhave at least some independent memory of what they knew\\nat the time. The plaintiffs particularly object, therefore, to the\\ndistrict court’s reliance on indirect evidence—the police re-\\nport and King’s affidavit—to conclude that the officers had\\nreasonable suspicion to pull them over. They offer four rea-\\nsons why the district court was wrong to consider this evi-\\ndence: first, the officers submitted it in response to the plain-\\ntiffs’ motion for summary judgment rather than in support of\\n\\n\\n 4 This second entry lacks a timestamp and so may have been received\\nlater. But because identifying the car as an SUV weakens the officers’ ar-\\ngument for reasonable suspicion and because we must take the facts in the\\nlight most favorable to the plaintiffs, we presume that this description had\\nbeen received by the time of the stop. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zen-\\nith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).\\n\\f8 No. 18-1935\\n\\ntheir own motion; second, King’s affidavit was a sham be-\\ncause it contradicted his prior testimony; third, the police re-\\nport was hearsay; and fourth, King’s lack of memory pre-\\ncludes him from relying on the collective knowledge doctrine.\\nNone of these arguments succeeds.\\n To begin with, it doesn’t matter that the officers submitted\\nthe report and affidavit in their response to the plaintiffs’ mo-\\ntion for summary judgment rather than in support of their\\nown motion. In adjudicating a motion for summary judg-\\nment, “[a] court need consider only the cited materials, but it\\nmay consider other materials in the record.” FED. R. CIV. P.\\n56(c)(3). The court was therefore free to consider evidence\\nsubmitted in response to one motion when it decided the\\nother. Indeed, it would have been odd for the court to ignore\\nthe report and affidavit, because they were obviously relevant\\nto the defendants’ cross-motion on the very same issues. See\\nLas Vegas Sands, LLC v. Nehme, 632 F.3d 526, 532 (9th Cir. 2011)\\n(“Where the parties file cross-motions for summary judg-\\nment, the court must consider each party’s evidence, regard-\\nless under which motion the evidence is offered.”). The plain-\\ntiffs had an opportunity to—and did—address the evidence\\nin their own brief, and they don’t suggest that they were in-\\nappropriately prejudiced by its consideration. Cf. Simpson v.\\nMerchs. Recovery Bureau, Inc., 171 F.3d 546, 551 (7th Cir. 1999)\\n(explaining that summary judgment may be granted sua\\nsponte “so long as the opposing party has had an adequate\\nopportunity to respond.” (citation omitted)). This argument\\nfor excluding the report and affidavit fails.\\n The plaintiffs’ next argument—that the court should have\\nexcluded King’s affidavit as a sham—fares no better. Accord-\\ning to the plaintiffs, King made several admissions during\\n\\fNo. 18-1935 9\\n\\ndiscovery that effectively conceded his liability, and his affi-\\ndavit contradicts these admissions because it explains why\\nKing had reasonable suspicion for the stop. Thus, they insist,\\nthe court was obliged to exclude the affidavit as a sham. See\\nBank of Illinois v. Allied Signal Safety Restraint Sys., 75 F.3d 1162,\\n1168 (7th Cir. 1996) (“[P]arties cannot thwart the purposes of\\nRule 56 by creating ‘sham’ issues of fact with affidavits that\\ncontradict their prior depositions.”). The premise of the plain-\\ntiffs’ argument is flawed, however, because King’s affidavit\\ndoes not contradict his prior admissions. King never con-\\nceded that he stopped the plaintiffs unlawfully; he stated that\\nhe had no independent memory of the incident. Admitting to\\na lack of memory is a far cry from admitting that the opposing\\nparty’s version of events is correct. See Brown v. County of Cook,\\n661 F.3d 333, 338 (7th Cir. 2011). Rather than contradicting his\\nprior admissions, King’s affidavit explained the newly intro-\\nduced police report and how it bore on the stop. The district\\ncourt did not abuse its “great discretion” by considering\\nKing’s testimony. See Maldonado v. U.S. Bank, 186 F.3d 759, 769\\n(7th Cir. 1999); cf. Bank of Illinois, 75 F.3d at 1172 (approving\\nconsideration of even contradictory affidavits if based on new\\nevidence).\\n The plaintiffs’ next argument—that the police report was\\ninadmissible hearsay—is their most underdeveloped. They\\ninsist that the report is hearsay, but they never articulate why\\nany of the statements within the report was offered as proof\\nof the truth of the matter asserted. See FED. R. EVID. 801(c)(2)\\n(“‘Hearsay’ means a statement that … a party offers in evi-\\ndence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the state-\\nment.”). Their failure to develop this argument is enough to\\ndispense with it. See Mathews v. REV Recreation Grp., Inc., No.\\n18-1982, 2019 WL 3369563, at *3 n.2 (7th Cir. July 26, 2019). We\\n\\f10 No. 18-1935\\n\\nobserve, however, that many of the statements were obvi-\\nously not offered for their truth. For example, the descriptions\\nof the shooters (three black men) and their vehicle (a grey Nis-\\nsan, a grey Trailblazer, or a grey Nissan SUV) were not of-\\nfered to show what the real shooters looked like or what car\\nthey were actually driving. The descriptions were offered to\\nshow that a competent officer aware of that information could\\nconclude that there was reasonable suspicion to stop Torry\\nand his passengers. See Woods v. City of Chicago, 234 F.3d 979,\\n986–87 (7th Cir. 2000) (a statement in a police report is not\\nhearsay if it is offered “to show the effect that the statements\\nhad on the officers” who heard it); id. at 987 (explaining that\\nthe Fourth Amendment analysis does not turn on whether the\\ninformation in the tips turns out to be true). Statements intro-\\nduced to show their effect on the listener, rather than the truth\\nof the matter they assert, are not hearsay. See 4 CHRISTOPHER\\nB. MUELLER & LAIRD C. KIRKPATRICK, FEDERAL EVIDENCE § 8:20\\n(4th ed. 2013).\\n We will assume for the sake of argument that the entries\\nreflecting King’s response to the shooting were offered for\\ntheir truth.5 Even if they were, however, the plaintiffs don’t\\n\\n\\n 5 It is doubtful, though, that even these statements are hearsay. The\\nfact that King was participating in the investigation is implicit in the en-\\ntries describing his response to the shot call, but that is not what the de-\\nclarant was intentionally trying to convey. Assertions often reflect a de-\\nclarant’s underlying assumptions, but only the assertions themselves meet\\nRule 801’s definition of hearsay. See FED. R. EVID. 801(1) (“‘Statement’\\nmeans a person’s oral assertion, written assertion, or nonverbal conduct,\\nif the person intended it as an assertion.” (emphasis added)); see also 4\\nMUELLER & KIRKPATRICK, supra, § 8:24. United States v. Zenni is the classic\\nexample. See 492 F. Supp. 464, 469 (E.D. Ky. 1980) (callers placing bets did\\n\\fNo. 18-1935 11\\n\\ncounter the defendants’ argument that the entire report is ad-\\nmissible under the business records exception. See FED. R.\\nEVID. 803(6). That exception applies if five conditions are met:\\n(1) “the record was made at or near the time by—or from in-\\nformation transmitted by—someone with knowledge”; (2)\\n“the record was kept in the ordinary course of a regularly con-\\nducted activity of a business, organization, occupation, or\\ncalling”; (3) “making the record was a regular practice of that\\nactivity”; (4) “all these conditions are shown by the testimony\\nof a custodian or another qualified witness”; and (5) “the op-\\nponent does not show that the source of the information or\\nthe method or circumstances of preparation indicate a lack of\\ntrustworthiness.” Id. The only factor that the plaintiffs come\\nclose to discussing is the fourth: they seem to argue that King\\nwas not qualified to authenticate the report because he could\\nnot remember receiving the transmissions that it recorded.\\nBut to authenticate a business record, a qualified witness\\n“need not be in control of or have individual knowledge of\\nthe particular [] records”; he “need only be familiar with the\\n[] recordkeeping practices.” Thanongsinh v. Bd. of Educ., 462\\nF.3d 762, 777 (7th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). In his affidavit,\\nKing testified that each of the conditions was satisfied. Plain-\\ntiffs have not argued otherwise. Because the report is a busi-\\nness record, all of its statements are admissible for their truth.6\\n\\n\\nnot intend to assert that they were telephoning a betting establishment, so\\nthe statements were not hearsay when offered for that purpose).\\n 6 It is true that any statements in the report made by those outside of\\nthe police force constitute “hearsay within hearsay” and would need to be\\nthemselves justified by a hearsay exception. The plaintiffs do not identify\\nany such statements in the report, so they have forfeited any argument for\\n\\f12 No. 18-1935\\n\\n The plaintiffs point out that while the police report shows\\nthat descriptions of the suspects were transmitted to investi-\\ngators, it does not expressly note whether the investigators\\nreceived them. The district court properly concluded, though,\\nthat we can impute that knowledge to King via the collective\\nknowledge doctrine. “[W]hen officers are in communication\\nwith each other while working together at a scene, their\\nknowledge may be mutually imputed even when there is no\\nexpress testimony that the specific or detailed information\\ncreating the justification for a stop was conveyed.” United\\nStates v. Nafzger, 974 F.2d 906, 911 (7th Cir. 1992); see also\\nUnited States v. Sawyer, 224 F.3d 675, 680 (7th Cir. 2000). That\\nis true even when the communication is by dispatch rather\\nthan face-to-face. See Sawyer, 224 F.3d at 680. King’s presence\\nat and involvement in the shooting investigation—bolstered\\nby his testimony that suspect descriptions are typically shared\\nwith officers at the scene and through the Office of Emergency\\nManagement and Communications—are enough to attribute\\nthe knowledge to him.\\n Because the report establishes that King was aware of both\\nthe shooting and the suspect descriptions, the court appropri-\\nately treated those as undisputed facts when considering\\nwhether reasonable suspicion for the Terry stop existed.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\ntheir exclusion. For the sake of completeness, however, we note that the\\nmost obvious candidates are the witnesses’ descriptions of the shooters.\\nAs we have already explained, they were not offered for their truth. Even\\nif they had been, though, they would have been admissible as present-\\nsense impressions. See FED. R. EVID. 803(1) (defining a present sense im-\\npression as “[a] statement describing or explaining an event or condition,\\nmade while or immediately after the declarant perceived it”).\\n\\fNo. 18-1935 13\\n\\n III.\\n That brings us to the reasonableness of the stop. The plain-\\ntiffs argue that it violated the Fourth Amendment, given that\\nthe shooting had occurred several hours earlier and that\\nTorry’s car was a different model than the one identified in\\nthe department’s transmissions to investigators. The defend-\\nants contend that the stop was lawful and that they are in any\\nevent entitled to qualified immunity.\\n Qualified immunity protects government officials from li-\\nability for civil damages as long as their actions do not violate\\n“clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which\\na reasonable person would have known.” Figgs v. Dawson, 829\\nF.3d 895, 905 (7th Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). Thus, to win,\\nthe plaintiffs must show not only that the stop was unlawful,\\nbut also that the unlawfulness of the stop was clearly estab-\\nlished at the time that it occurred. Because the plaintiffs can-\\nnot make the latter showing, we need not consider whether\\nthe stop violated the Fourth Amendment. See Pearson v. Calla-\\nhan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 (2009) (“[C]ourts of appeals should be\\npermitted to exercise their sound discretion in deciding which\\nof the two prongs of the qualified immunity analysis should\\nbe addressed first ….”).\\n The “demanding standard” that the law be “clearly estab-\\nlished” for liability to attach “protects ‘all but the plainly in-\\ncompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.’” District\\nof Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577, 589 (2018) (quoting Malley\\nv. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986)). For the law to be “clearly\\nestablished,” existing precedent must have placed the unlaw-\\nfulness of the stop “beyond debate.” Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563\\nU.S. 731, 741 (2011). It is usually necessary to identify an in-\\nstance in which “an officer acting under similar circumstances\\n\\f14 No. 18-1935\\n\\n… was held to have violated the Fourth Amendment,” though\\nin the “rare ‘obvious case’” the violation may be sufficiently\\nclear “even though existing precedent does not address simi-\\nlar circumstances.” Wesby, 138 S. Ct. at 590 (alteration in orig-\\ninal) (citations omitted).\\n The general rule established by Terry v. Ohio is that officers\\nmay conduct a brief investigatory stop if they reasonably sus-\\npect that an individual has committed or is about to commit\\na crime. 392 U.S. 1, 20–22 (1968). Reasonable suspicion is a\\nlower standard than probable cause. See Navarette v. California,\\n572 U.S. 393, 397 (2014). It’s a “commonsense, nontechnical\\n[standard] that deal[s] with ‘the factual and practical consid-\\nerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent\\nmen, not legal technicians, act.’” Ornelas v. United States, 517\\nU.S. 690, 695 (1996) (citation omitted). It is judged holistically,\\nbased on “the sum of all of the information known to officers\\nat the time of the stop.” See Matz v. Klotka, 769 F.3d 517, 523\\n(7th Cir. 2014).\\n The plaintiffs do not contend that this is the rare case in\\nwhich the facts establish a blatant violation of Terry’s rule\\neven though there is no case on point. See Wesby, 138 S. Ct. at\\n590. Instead, they identify two cases that they say clearly es-\\ntablished the illegality of this Terry stop: Gentry v. Sevier, 597\\nF.3d 838 (7th Cir. 2010), and United States v. Packer, 15 F.3d 654\\n(7th Cir. 1994). In Gentry, a police officer stopped someone af-\\nter hearing a dispatch report that a suspicious person was\\npushing a wheelbarrow. 597 F.3d at 842–43. In Packer, police\\nofficers stopped a vehicle’s occupants based on a citizen’s re-\\nport that a suspicious vehicle was parked along the street at\\none o’clock in the morning. 15 F.3d at 658. Neither report pro-\\nvided any facts concerning any crime that the people stopped\\n\\fNo. 18-1935 15\\n\\nwere suspected of committing—they were stopped just be-\\ncause they looked suspicious. In both cases, therefore, the of-\\nficers “lacked the minimal detail of information that would\\npoint to any arguably particularized suspicion of criminal\\nconduct.” Green v. Newport, 868 F.3d 629, 634 (7th Cir. 2017)\\n(citation omitted).\\n Neither Gentry nor Packer speaks to a situation like this\\none, where the plaintiffs partially matched the description of\\nsuspects involved in a drive-by shooting. When the officers in\\nthis case stopped the plaintiffs, they knew that three black\\nmen in a grey car were suspected of committing a nearby\\nshooting earlier that day. The plaintiffs matched this descrip-\\ntion in number, race, and car color. Cf. United States v. Lenoir,\\n318 F.3d 725, 729 (7th Cir. 2003) (“[P]olice observation of an\\nindividual, fitting a police dispatch description of a person in-\\nvolved in a disturbance, near in time and geographic location\\nto the disturbance establishes a reasonable suspicion that the\\nindividual is the subject of the dispatch.”). The plaintiffs ar-\\ngue that the reasonableness of the officers’ suspicion was nev-\\nertheless undermined in two ways: first, the descriptions that\\nthe officers relied on identified the suspects’ vehicle as an\\nSUV, but the plaintiffs were in a sedan; and second, the shoot-\\ning occurred too far away (half a mile) and too long before\\n(four hours) to justify the stop. But while these discrepancies\\nmay weigh against the officers’ suspicion, they don’t clearly\\novercome it.\\n We’ll begin with the variation between Torry’s car and the\\ndescriptions of the suspects’ car. Under our precedent, an im-\\nperfect match between a suspect and a description does not\\nnecessarily make an officer’s suspicion unreasonable. See, e.g.,\\n\\f16 No. 18-1935\\n\\nD.Z. v. Buell, 796 F.3d 749, 754 (7th Cir. 2015) (finding reason-\\nable suspicion to stop an individual “who somewhat matched\\nthe description of the suspect”). And the significance of the\\nimperfect match may have been lessened here because there\\nwere multiple reports giving conflicting information about\\nthe suspects’ grey car. One report identified it as a Nissan,\\nwithout giving a model; another identified it as a Nissan SUV;\\nand a third identified it as a Trailblazer (an SUV made by\\nChevrolet). The fact that the reports’ descriptions of the car\\nwere consistent only as to its grey color gave the officers some\\nreason to pay more attention to the color than to the make or\\nmodel. No clearly established law holds that this kind of var-\\niation makes an officer’s suspicion unreasonable under the\\nFourth Amendment.\\n As for the time and place discrepancies, past cases have\\nnot established that they’re enough to defeat reasonable sus-\\npicion. In United States v. Tilmon, for example, we found a stop\\nreasonable based on the “match of a unique automobile with\\na driver fitting the general description of the bank robber,”\\neven though the stop occurred two hours after and fifty miles\\naway from the robbery. 19 F.3d 1221, 1225 (7th Cir. 1994). This\\nstop occurred four hours after but only a half-mile away from\\nthe shooting and within the “safe passage” area surrounding\\nManley High School.\\n Finally, the officers’ suspicion was not based solely on the\\ndescriptions of the suspects. The plaintiffs had also passed by\\nthe same area multiple times, behavior that could suggest that\\nthey were casing it in preparation for further criminal activity\\nrelated to the dispute underlying the shooting. Cf. Green, 868\\nF.3d at 634 (circling an auto parts store’s parking lot multiple\\n\\fNo. 18-1935 17\\n\\ntimes near the close of business contributed to an officer’s rea-\\nsonable suspicion). Taking all of this evidence together, a rea-\\nsonable officer could have concluded that the investigative\\nTerry stop of the plaintiffs comported with the Fourth\\nAmendment. See Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 641\\n(1987).\\n IV.\\n Finally, the plaintiffs argue that even if the stop was ini-\\ntially justified, it exceeded its appropriate bounds and turned\\ninto a de facto arrest. They argue that taking Torry’s identifi-\\ncation and placing him in the back of the squad car was more\\nintrusive than was warranted for the Terry stop, and thus\\ntransformed the encounter into an arrest without probable\\ncause.\\n The district court concluded both that the scope of the stop\\nwas lawful and that the officers were entitled to qualified im-\\nmunity regardless. The plaintiffs challenge only one of those\\nholdings: the lawfulness of the stop. Because they do not chal-\\nlenge the district court’s alternative holding that the defend-\\nants are entitled to qualified immunity, they have forfeited\\nthis argument. See United States v. Giovannetti, 919 F.2d 1223,\\n1230 (7th Cir. 1990) (“A litigant who fails to press a point by\\nsupporting it with pertinent authority, or by showing why it\\nis a good point despite a lack of supporting authority or in the\\nface of contrary authority, forfeits the point.” (emphasis omit-\\nted)). We note, however, that our precedent on the permissi-\\nble scope of a Terry stop would have made this a tough argu-\\nment for the plaintiffs to win. In United States v. Bullock, for\\nexample, we held that a defendant being handcuffed, placed\\nin a squad car, and transported back to a house that he had\\nrecently left didn’t transform a Terry stop into an arrest. See\\n\\f18 No. 18-1935\\n\\n632 F.3d 1004, 1016 (7th Cir. 2011). We specifically noted that\\nbecause the officers suspected that the defendant was selling\\ndrugs—a crime “associated with dangerous and violent be-\\nhavior”—detention in the squad car was a reasonable precau-\\ntion. Id. In the face of decisions like Bullock, the plaintiffs in\\nthis case would have a difficult time showing that detaining a\\ndrive-by shooting suspect in a squad car for approximately\\neight minutes clearly rose to the level of a formal arrest re-\\nquiring probable cause under the law at that time.\\n ***\\n Because the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity,\\nthe judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4422719/\", \"author_raw\": \"BARRETT, Circuit Judge\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"KANNE"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"BARRETT"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"BRENNAN"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"KANNE\": \", Circuit\", \"BARRETT\": \", Circuit\", \"BRENNAN\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645466/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":8,"string":"8"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Marcus Torry v. City of Chicago\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-08-02\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-1935\nMARCUS D. TORRY, LATRELL Q. GOSS,\nand WILLIAM I. ROBERTS,\n Plaintiffs-Appellants,\n\n v.\n\nCITY OF CHICAGO, et al.,\n Defendants-Appellees.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\n No. 1:15-cv-8383 — John Robert Blakey, Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED APRIL 9, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 2, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before KANNE, BARRETT, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\n BARRETT, Circuit Judge. One afternoon in 2014, three Chi-\ncago police officers stopped three black men in a grey sedan\nto investigate a nearby shooting that had happened a few\nhours earlier. When the passengers sued the officers a year\nlater, none of the officers remembered the Terry stop. Lacking\nrecall, they relied on other evidence to show that reasonable\nsuspicion had existed for it. Cell phone footage taken by one\n\f2 No. 18-1935\n\nof the plaintiffs during the encounter depicted Sergeant Rob-\nert King, the officer who initiated the stop, citing the plain-\ntiffs’ suspicious behavior in the area of the shooting as the rea-\nson that he had pulled them over. And a police report showed\nthat dispatches to officers investigating the shooting, includ-\ning King, identified the suspects as three black men in a grey\ncar. The descriptions of the car’s model varied, and none was\nan exact match for the car that the plaintiffs were driving. But\nreasonable suspicion can exist without an exact match, and\nthe district court held that these descriptions were close\nenough to justify the Terry stop. In any event, the court said,\nthe officers were entitled to qualified immunity because the\nstop did not violate clearly established law.\n Before us, the plaintiffs have repeatedly suggested that the\ndefendants’ failure of memory is a concession of liability. In\nother words, they maintain that if a police officer doesn’t re-\nmember a stop now, reasonable suspicion could not have jus-\ntified it at the time. But the Fourth Amendment does not gov-\nern how an officer proves that he had reasonable suspicion for\na Terry stop; he can rely on evidence other than his memory\nto establish what he knew when the stop occurred. The police\nreport demonstrates that King knew that the suspects in the\nshooting had been identified as three black men driving a\ngrey car, and the cell-phone video shows him giving the\nshooting as the reason for the stop. We agree with the district\ncourt that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.\n I.\n On the morning of September 23, 2014, a drive-by shoot-\ning occurred about half a mile from Manley High School,\nwhich is located on West Polk Street in Chicago. Sergeant\nRobert King was on duty that day as a “school sergeant”—an\n\fNo. 18-1935 3\n\nofficer who responds to and investigates violence near\nschools within his beat. A police report detailing the chronol-\nogy of events related to the shooting shows that King re-\nsponded to the shooting and that three descriptions of sus-\npects were received while he was assisting.1 One identified\nthe suspects’ vehicle as a newer-model grey Nissan with three\nblack male occupants. The second was almost identical to the\nfirst but specified that the Nissan was an SUV. The third iden-\ntified the shooter as a medium-complected black male wear-\ning a white t-shirt and driving a grey Trailblazer (a Chevrolet\nSUV).\n Shortly past noon on that same day, Marcus Torry and\nWilliam Roberts picked up Latrell Goss, Torry’s brother, in a\ngrey Ford Fusion sedan. Goss’s car had broken down on West\nPolk Street; Torry and Roberts met him at his car and then\ndrove him west on West Polk to an auto parts store. They\npassed Manley High School as they drove to the store, and\nthey passed it again when they returned the same way. As\nthey went by the school for the second time, they were pulled\nover by three police officers—King, Jacek Leja, and Justin Rae-\nther. Torry captured video of the ensuing encounter on his\ncell phone camera. Like the district court, we draw our de-\n\n\n 1 This report is from the Office of Emergency Management and Com-\nmunications and is called a “Chicago Police Department Event Query Re-\nport.” For simplicity’s sake, we will refer to it as a “police report.” The\nrecord also contains post-dated supplementary reports that expand on the\ninformation contained in the police report. The parties dispute the admis-\nsibility of these supplementary reports, but because they are not necessary\nto show that King knew about the shooting and suspect descriptions, we\ndo not address them.\n\f4 No. 18-1935\n\nscription of the encounter primarily from the video, supple-\nmenting it with other undisputed facts and drawing all infer-\nences in the plaintiffs’ favor.2\n After Torry pulled over, King approached his window\nand asked for his license and registration. Torry asked why\nhe had been stopped, and King replied that “this was about\nyour third pass by this school.” Torry protested that he had\nnot driven by the school three times and handed over his li-\ncense and registration. King told him not to argue; Torry de-\nmanded King’s badge number.\n King told Torry to step out of the car and reached for the\nhandle of the driver’s door, which prompted Torry to ask if\nhe was under arrest. King didn’t directly answer the question\nbut said, “Sir, get out of the car please. Sir, this is a Terry stop,\nI have the right to search the car, get out of the car.” Torry,\nprotesting that he had done nothing wrong, failed to comply\nwith multiple commands that he exit the vehicle. King told\nTorry, “If you don’t get out of the car, I will remove you from\nthe car,” and Torry replied, “I’m gonna remove myself but I\njust don’t want to get—y’all get me, shoot me, or kill me for\nsomething I didn’t do wrong.” King responded, “Yes, sir, ab-\nsolutely; hands up, don’t shoot, there you go.” Neither King\nnor the other officers had a gun out, but Torry feared police\nbrutality.\n Torry testified that when he finally removed his seatbelt,\nKing “just grab[bed] me out of the car.” King ordered Torry\nto “come on out, sir,” as Torry repeatedly exclaimed, “Please\n\n 2 Neither side contests the admissibility of the video, which the plain-\ntiffs and defendants introduced as a joint exhibit in the district court. The\nvideo runs the full length of the stop.\n\fNo. 18-1935 5\n\ndon’t shoot.” King walked Torry to a squad car, saying, “Let’s\ngo back to my car, sir, right over here,” and placed him inside.\nGoss testified that an officer grabbed him out of the car too,\nbut neither Goss nor Roberts were placed in a squad car. After\nthe plaintiffs had been repeatedly ordered to leave the car but\nbefore they had complied, one of the officers shook a can of\nmace, although he never used it.\n After placing Torry in the back of his squad car, King sat\nin the front for a few minutes while he ran Torry’s name\nthrough a warrant check. Torry demanded to know why he\nhad been pulled over, and King explained that Torry had\n“cruised this street here around the school,” which was an\narea of “safe passage” and “the immediate location of a shoot-\ning this morning.” (An area of “safe passage” is a designated\narea where extra precautions are taken to prevent violence\nthat might affect students on their way to and from school.)\nKing then returned to Torry’s car, where the officers talked to\nGoss and Roberts, who testified that the other officers patted\nthem down and searched Goss’s pockets. Still in the squad\ncar, Torry yelled obscenities and protests while continuing to\nfilm with his cell phone camera. At one point, Goss ap-\nproached the car and told him to be quiet, to which Torry re-\nsponded, “Leave me alone!”\n Roughly ten minutes into the stop and eight minutes after\nputting Torry in the squad car, King retrieved Torry and\nwalked him back to his own car. Torry asked if he was under\narrest, to which King answered, “If you were under arrest,\nyou’d be in handcuffs.” Torry got in his car, and King re-\nturned his license and registration. Shortly after, one of the\nofficers said to Goss that “you don’t want anything to do with\nhim,” and—in response to an unintelligible reply—said,\n\f6 No. 18-1935\n\n“Yeah, c’mon, jump in the car … yeah we’ll give you a ride\nhome.” Goss testified that the officers had told him to get in\ntheir car to return to his disabled car.\n Free to leave, Torry and Roberts pulled back onto West\nPolk Street. Torry continued his video recording, narrating\nthat the officers were driving behind his car. Goss, riding in\nthe back seat of Leja and Raether’s car, testified that those of-\nficers debated pulling Torry over again “to mess with him.”\nBut the officers dropped Goss off at his car and nothing else\nhappened.\n One year later, Torry, Goss, and Roberts sued the three\nofficers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the officers\nlacked reasonable suspicion to initiate the Terry stop, and that\neven if the stop was justified, its scope transformed it into a\nde facto arrest without probable cause.3 By the time the\nplaintiffs filed suit, none of the officers could recall the stop.\nNor could King recall any details about the shooting. It was\nundisputed, though, that the shooting occurred while King\nwas on duty in that area as a school sergeant, and the police\nreport detailing the investigation’s chronology reflected that\nKing responded as an assist vehicle to the shooting, drove\naround the corner to the victim’s residence a few minutes\nlater, and continued to assist until 9:49 a.m., when the report\nnotes him as “clear.” During the hour or so that King was on\nthe shot call, three suspect descriptions were transmitted to\ninvestigators: one that identified the suspects’ car as a newer-\nmodel grey Nissan with three black male occupants, a second\n\n\n 3 The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed other claims that they had as-\nserted against the officers.\n\fNo. 18-1935 7\n\nthat was almost identical to the first but specified that the\nNissan was an SUV,4 and a third that identified the shooter as\na medium-complected black male wearing a white t-shirt and\ndriving a grey Trailblazer.\n Based on that report and his review of Torry’s video, King\ntestified by affidavit that the dispatches would have alerted\nhim that the suspects were three black men driving a grey car,\nand, as the video reflected, that he told Torry—who was driv-\ning a grey car with three black male occupants—that he had\nstopped him because of the shooting. The plaintiffs and the\ndefendants filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and\nthe district court granted summary judgment to the defend-\nants.\n II.\n The primary theme of the plaintiffs’ argument is that prov-\ning reasonable suspicion for the stop requires the officers to\nhave at least some independent memory of what they knew\nat the time. The plaintiffs particularly object, therefore, to the\ndistrict court’s reliance on indirect evidence—the police re-\nport and King’s affidavit—to conclude that the officers had\nreasonable suspicion to pull them over. They offer four rea-\nsons why the district court was wrong to consider this evi-\ndence: first, the officers submitted it in response to the plain-\ntiffs’ motion for summary judgment rather than in support of\n\n\n 4 This second entry lacks a timestamp and so may have been received\nlater. But because identifying the car as an SUV weakens the officers’ ar-\ngument for reasonable suspicion and because we must take the facts in the\nlight most favorable to the plaintiffs, we presume that this description had\nbeen received by the time of the stop. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zen-\nith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).\n\f8 No. 18-1935\n\ntheir own motion; second, King’s affidavit was a sham be-\ncause it contradicted his prior testimony; third, the police re-\nport was hearsay; and fourth, King’s lack of memory pre-\ncludes him from relying on the collective knowledge doctrine.\nNone of these arguments succeeds.\n To begin with, it doesn’t matter that the officers submitted\nthe report and affidavit in their response to the plaintiffs’ mo-\ntion for summary judgment rather than in support of their\nown motion. In adjudicating a motion for summary judg-\nment, “[a] court need consider only the cited materials, but it\nmay consider other materials in the record.” FED. R. CIV. P.\n56(c)(3). The court was therefore free to consider evidence\nsubmitted in response to one motion when it decided the\nother. Indeed, it would have been odd for the court to ignore\nthe report and affidavit, because they were obviously relevant\nto the defendants’ cross-motion on the very same issues. See\nLas Vegas Sands, LLC v. Nehme, 632 F.3d 526, 532 (9th Cir. 2011)\n(“Where the parties file cross-motions for summary judg-\nment, the court must consider each party’s evidence, regard-\nless under which motion the evidence is offered.”). The plain-\ntiffs had an opportunity to—and did—address the evidence\nin their own brief, and they don’t suggest that they were in-\nappropriately prejudiced by its consideration. Cf. Simpson v.\nMerchs. Recovery Bureau, Inc., 171 F.3d 546, 551 (7th Cir. 1999)\n(explaining that summary judgment may be granted sua\nsponte “so long as the opposing party has had an adequate\nopportunity to respond.” (citation omitted)). This argument\nfor excluding the report and affidavit fails.\n The plaintiffs’ next argument—that the court should have\nexcluded King’s affidavit as a sham—fares no better. Accord-\ning to the plaintiffs, King made several admissions during\n\fNo. 18-1935 9\n\ndiscovery that effectively conceded his liability, and his affi-\ndavit contradicts these admissions because it explains why\nKing had reasonable suspicion for the stop. Thus, they insist,\nthe court was obliged to exclude the affidavit as a sham. See\nBank of Illinois v. Allied Signal Safety Restraint Sys., 75 F.3d 1162,\n1168 (7th Cir. 1996) (“[P]arties cannot thwart the purposes of\nRule 56 by creating ‘sham’ issues of fact with affidavits that\ncontradict their prior depositions.”). The premise of the plain-\ntiffs’ argument is flawed, however, because King’s affidavit\ndoes not contradict his prior admissions. King never con-\nceded that he stopped the plaintiffs unlawfully; he stated that\nhe had no independent memory of the incident. Admitting to\na lack of memory is a far cry from admitting that the opposing\nparty’s version of events is correct. See Brown v. County of Cook,\n661 F.3d 333, 338 (7th Cir. 2011). Rather than contradicting his\nprior admissions, King’s affidavit explained the newly intro-\nduced police report and how it bore on the stop. The district\ncourt did not abuse its “great discretion” by considering\nKing’s testimony. See Maldonado v. U.S. Bank, 186 F.3d 759, 769\n(7th Cir. 1999); cf. Bank of Illinois, 75 F.3d at 1172 (approving\nconsideration of even contradictory affidavits if based on new\nevidence).\n The plaintiffs’ next argument—that the police report was\ninadmissible hearsay—is their most underdeveloped. They\ninsist that the report is hearsay, but they never articulate why\nany of the statements within the report was offered as proof\nof the truth of the matter asserted. See FED. R. EVID. 801(c)(2)\n(“‘Hearsay’ means a statement that … a party offers in evi-\ndence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the state-\nment.”). Their failure to develop this argument is enough to\ndispense with it. See Mathews v. REV Recreation Grp., Inc., No.\n18-1982, 2019 WL 3369563, at *3 n.2 (7th Cir. July 26, 2019). We\n\f10 No. 18-1935\n\nobserve, however, that many of the statements were obvi-\nously not offered for their truth. For example, the descriptions\nof the shooters (three black men) and their vehicle (a grey Nis-\nsan, a grey Trailblazer, or a grey Nissan SUV) were not of-\nfered to show what the real shooters looked like or what car\nthey were actually driving. The descriptions were offered to\nshow that a competent officer aware of that information could\nconclude that there was reasonable suspicion to stop Torry\nand his passengers. See Woods v. City of Chicago, 234 F.3d 979,\n986–87 (7th Cir. 2000) (a statement in a police report is not\nhearsay if it is offered “to show the effect that the statements\nhad on the officers” who heard it); id. at 987 (explaining that\nthe Fourth Amendment analysis does not turn on whether the\ninformation in the tips turns out to be true). Statements intro-\nduced to show their effect on the listener, rather than the truth\nof the matter they assert, are not hearsay. See 4 CHRISTOPHER\nB. MUELLER & LAIRD C. KIRKPATRICK, FEDERAL EVIDENCE § 8:20\n(4th ed. 2013).\n We will assume for the sake of argument that the entries\nreflecting King’s response to the shooting were offered for\ntheir truth.5 Even if they were, however, the plaintiffs don’t\n\n\n 5 It is doubtful, though, that even these statements are hearsay. The\nfact that King was participating in the investigation is implicit in the en-\ntries describing his response to the shot call, but that is not what the de-\nclarant was intentionally trying to convey. Assertions often reflect a de-\nclarant’s underlying assumptions, but only the assertions themselves meet\nRule 801’s definition of hearsay. See FED. R. EVID. 801(1) (“‘Statement’\nmeans a person’s oral assertion, written assertion, or nonverbal conduct,\nif the person intended it as an assertion.” (emphasis added)); see also 4\nMUELLER & KIRKPATRICK, supra, § 8:24. United States v. Zenni is the classic\nexample. See 492 F. Supp. 464, 469 (E.D. Ky. 1980) (callers placing bets did\n\fNo. 18-1935 11\n\ncounter the defendants’ argument that the entire report is ad-\nmissible under the business records exception. See FED. R.\nEVID. 803(6). That exception applies if five conditions are met:\n(1) “the record was made at or near the time by—or from in-\nformation transmitted by—someone with knowledge”; (2)\n“the record was kept in the ordinary course of a regularly con-\nducted activity of a business, organization, occupation, or\ncalling”; (3) “making the record was a regular practice of that\nactivity”; (4) “all these conditions are shown by the testimony\nof a custodian or another qualified witness”; and (5) “the op-\nponent does not show that the source of the information or\nthe method or circumstances of preparation indicate a lack of\ntrustworthiness.” Id. The only factor that the plaintiffs come\nclose to discussing is the fourth: they seem to argue that King\nwas not qualified to authenticate the report because he could\nnot remember receiving the transmissions that it recorded.\nBut to authenticate a business record, a qualified witness\n“need not be in control of or have individual knowledge of\nthe particular [] records”; he “need only be familiar with the\n[] recordkeeping practices.” Thanongsinh v. Bd. of Educ., 462\nF.3d 762, 777 (7th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). In his affidavit,\nKing testified that each of the conditions was satisfied. Plain-\ntiffs have not argued otherwise. Because the report is a busi-\nness record, all of its statements are admissible for their truth.6\n\n\nnot intend to assert that they were telephoning a betting establishment, so\nthe statements were not hearsay when offered for that purpose).\n 6 It is true that any statements in the report made by those outside of\nthe police force constitute “hearsay within hearsay” and would need to be\nthemselves justified by a hearsay exception. The plaintiffs do not identify\nany such statements in the report, so they have forfeited any argument for\n\f12 No. 18-1935\n\n The plaintiffs point out that while the police report shows\nthat descriptions of the suspects were transmitted to investi-\ngators, it does not expressly note whether the investigators\nreceived them. The district court properly concluded, though,\nthat we can impute that knowledge to King via the collective\nknowledge doctrine. “[W]hen officers are in communication\nwith each other while working together at a scene, their\nknowledge may be mutually imputed even when there is no\nexpress testimony that the specific or detailed information\ncreating the justification for a stop was conveyed.” United\nStates v. Nafzger, 974 F.2d 906, 911 (7th Cir. 1992); see also\nUnited States v. Sawyer, 224 F.3d 675, 680 (7th Cir. 2000). That\nis true even when the communication is by dispatch rather\nthan face-to-face. See Sawyer, 224 F.3d at 680. King’s presence\nat and involvement in the shooting investigation—bolstered\nby his testimony that suspect descriptions are typically shared\nwith officers at the scene and through the Office of Emergency\nManagement and Communications—are enough to attribute\nthe knowledge to him.\n Because the report establishes that King was aware of both\nthe shooting and the suspect descriptions, the court appropri-\nately treated those as undisputed facts when considering\nwhether reasonable suspicion for the Terry stop existed.\n\n\n\n\ntheir exclusion. For the sake of completeness, however, we note that the\nmost obvious candidates are the witnesses’ descriptions of the shooters.\nAs we have already explained, they were not offered for their truth. Even\nif they had been, though, they would have been admissible as present-\nsense impressions. See FED. R. EVID. 803(1) (defining a present sense im-\npression as “[a] statement describing or explaining an event or condition,\nmade while or immediately after the declarant perceived it”).\n\fNo. 18-1935 13\n\n III.\n That brings us to the reasonableness of the stop. The plain-\ntiffs argue that it violated the Fourth Amendment, given that\nthe shooting had occurred several hours earlier and that\nTorry’s car was a different model than the one identified in\nthe department’s transmissions to investigators. The defend-\nants contend that the stop was lawful and that they are in any\nevent entitled to qualified immunity.\n Qualified immunity protects government officials from li-\nability for civil damages as long as their actions do not violate\n“clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which\na reasonable person would have known.” Figgs v. Dawson, 829\nF.3d 895, 905 (7th Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). Thus, to win,\nthe plaintiffs must show not only that the stop was unlawful,\nbut also that the unlawfulness of the stop was clearly estab-\nlished at the time that it occurred. Because the plaintiffs can-\nnot make the latter showing, we need not consider whether\nthe stop violated the Fourth Amendment. See Pearson v. Calla-\nhan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 (2009) (“[C]ourts of appeals should be\npermitted to exercise their sound discretion in deciding which\nof the two prongs of the qualified immunity analysis should\nbe addressed first ….”).\n The “demanding standard” that the law be “clearly estab-\nlished” for liability to attach “protects ‘all but the plainly in-\ncompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.’” District\nof Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577, 589 (2018) (quoting Malley\nv. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986)). For the law to be “clearly\nestablished,” existing precedent must have placed the unlaw-\nfulness of the stop “beyond debate.” Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563\nU.S. 731, 741 (2011). It is usually necessary to identify an in-\nstance in which “an officer acting under similar circumstances\n\f14 No. 18-1935\n\n… was held to have violated the Fourth Amendment,” though\nin the “rare ‘obvious case’” the violation may be sufficiently\nclear “even though existing precedent does not address simi-\nlar circumstances.” Wesby, 138 S. Ct. at 590 (alteration in orig-\ninal) (citations omitted).\n The general rule established by Terry v. Ohio is that officers\nmay conduct a brief investigatory stop if they reasonably sus-\npect that an individual has committed or is about to commit\na crime. 392 U.S. 1, 20–22 (1968). Reasonable suspicion is a\nlower standard than probable cause. See Navarette v. California,\n572 U.S. 393, 397 (2014). It’s a “commonsense, nontechnical\n[standard] that deal[s] with ‘the factual and practical consid-\nerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent\nmen, not legal technicians, act.’” Ornelas v. United States, 517\nU.S. 690, 695 (1996) (citation omitted). It is judged holistically,\nbased on “the sum of all of the information known to officers\nat the time of the stop.” See Matz v. Klotka, 769 F.3d 517, 523\n(7th Cir. 2014).\n The plaintiffs do not contend that this is the rare case in\nwhich the facts establish a blatant violation of Terry’s rule\neven though there is no case on point. See Wesby, 138 S. Ct. at\n590. Instead, they identify two cases that they say clearly es-\ntablished the illegality of this Terry stop: Gentry v. Sevier, 597\nF.3d 838 (7th Cir. 2010), and United States v. Packer, 15 F.3d 654\n(7th Cir. 1994). In Gentry, a police officer stopped someone af-\nter hearing a dispatch report that a suspicious person was\npushing a wheelbarrow. 597 F.3d at 842–43. In Packer, police\nofficers stopped a vehicle’s occupants based on a citizen’s re-\nport that a suspicious vehicle was parked along the street at\none o’clock in the morning. 15 F.3d at 658. Neither report pro-\nvided any facts concerning any crime that the people stopped\n\fNo. 18-1935 15\n\nwere suspected of committing—they were stopped just be-\ncause they looked suspicious. In both cases, therefore, the of-\nficers “lacked the minimal detail of information that would\npoint to any arguably particularized suspicion of criminal\nconduct.” Green v. Newport, 868 F.3d 629, 634 (7th Cir. 2017)\n(citation omitted).\n Neither Gentry nor Packer speaks to a situation like this\none, where the plaintiffs partially matched the description of\nsuspects involved in a drive-by shooting. When the officers in\nthis case stopped the plaintiffs, they knew that three black\nmen in a grey car were suspected of committing a nearby\nshooting earlier that day. The plaintiffs matched this descrip-\ntion in number, race, and car color. Cf. United States v. Lenoir,\n318 F.3d 725, 729 (7th Cir. 2003) (“[P]olice observation of an\nindividual, fitting a police dispatch description of a person in-\nvolved in a disturbance, near in time and geographic location\nto the disturbance establishes a reasonable suspicion that the\nindividual is the subject of the dispatch.”). The plaintiffs ar-\ngue that the reasonableness of the officers’ suspicion was nev-\nertheless undermined in two ways: first, the descriptions that\nthe officers relied on identified the suspects’ vehicle as an\nSUV, but the plaintiffs were in a sedan; and second, the shoot-\ning occurred too far away (half a mile) and too long before\n(four hours) to justify the stop. But while these discrepancies\nmay weigh against the officers’ suspicion, they don’t clearly\novercome it.\n We’ll begin with the variation between Torry’s car and the\ndescriptions of the suspects’ car. Under our precedent, an im-\nperfect match between a suspect and a description does not\nnecessarily make an officer’s suspicion unreasonable. See, e.g.,\n\f16 No. 18-1935\n\nD.Z. v. Buell, 796 F.3d 749, 754 (7th Cir. 2015) (finding reason-\nable suspicion to stop an individual “who somewhat matched\nthe description of the suspect”). And the significance of the\nimperfect match may have been lessened here because there\nwere multiple reports giving conflicting information about\nthe suspects’ grey car. One report identified it as a Nissan,\nwithout giving a model; another identified it as a Nissan SUV;\nand a third identified it as a Trailblazer (an SUV made by\nChevrolet). The fact that the reports’ descriptions of the car\nwere consistent only as to its grey color gave the officers some\nreason to pay more attention to the color than to the make or\nmodel. No clearly established law holds that this kind of var-\niation makes an officer’s suspicion unreasonable under the\nFourth Amendment.\n As for the time and place discrepancies, past cases have\nnot established that they’re enough to defeat reasonable sus-\npicion. In United States v. Tilmon, for example, we found a stop\nreasonable based on the “match of a unique automobile with\na driver fitting the general description of the bank robber,”\neven though the stop occurred two hours after and fifty miles\naway from the robbery. 19 F.3d 1221, 1225 (7th Cir. 1994). This\nstop occurred four hours after but only a half-mile away from\nthe shooting and within the “safe passage” area surrounding\nManley High School.\n Finally, the officers’ suspicion was not based solely on the\ndescriptions of the suspects. The plaintiffs had also passed by\nthe same area multiple times, behavior that could suggest that\nthey were casing it in preparation for further criminal activity\nrelated to the dispute underlying the shooting. Cf. Green, 868\nF.3d at 634 (circling an auto parts store’s parking lot multiple\n\fNo. 18-1935 17\n\ntimes near the close of business contributed to an officer’s rea-\nsonable suspicion). Taking all of this evidence together, a rea-\nsonable officer could have concluded that the investigative\nTerry stop of the plaintiffs comported with the Fourth\nAmendment. See Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 641\n(1987).\n IV.\n Finally, the plaintiffs argue that even if the stop was ini-\ntially justified, it exceeded its appropriate bounds and turned\ninto a de facto arrest. They argue that taking Torry’s identifi-\ncation and placing him in the back of the squad car was more\nintrusive than was warranted for the Terry stop, and thus\ntransformed the encounter into an arrest without probable\ncause.\n The district court concluded both that the scope of the stop\nwas lawful and that the officers were entitled to qualified im-\nmunity regardless. The plaintiffs challenge only one of those\nholdings: the lawfulness of the stop. Because they do not chal-\nlenge the district court’s alternative holding that the defend-\nants are entitled to qualified immunity, they have forfeited\nthis argument. See United States v. Giovannetti, 919 F.2d 1223,\n1230 (7th Cir. 1990) (“A litigant who fails to press a point by\nsupporting it with pertinent authority, or by showing why it\nis a good point despite a lack of supporting authority or in the\nface of contrary authority, forfeits the point.” (emphasis omit-\nted)). We note, however, that our precedent on the permissi-\nble scope of a Terry stop would have made this a tough argu-\nment for the plaintiffs to win. In United States v. Bullock, for\nexample, we held that a defendant being handcuffed, placed\nin a squad car, and transported back to a house that he had\nrecently left didn’t transform a Terry stop into an arrest. See\n\f18 No. 18-1935\n\n632 F.3d 1004, 1016 (7th Cir. 2011). We specifically noted that\nbecause the officers suspected that the defendant was selling\ndrugs—a crime “associated with dangerous and violent be-\nhavior”—detention in the squad car was a reasonable precau-\ntion. Id. In the face of decisions like Bullock, the plaintiffs in\nthis case would have a difficult time showing that detaining a\ndrive-by shooting suspect in a squad car for approximately\neight minutes clearly rose to the level of a formal arrest re-\nquiring probable cause under the law at that time.\n ***\n Because the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity,\nthe judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Marcus Torry v. City of Chicago\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-08-02\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-1935\\nMARCUS D. TORRY, LATRELL Q. GOSS,\\nand WILLIAM I. ROBERTS,\\n Plaintiffs-Appellants,\\n\\n v.\\n\\nCITY OF CHICAGO, et al.,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 1:15-cv-8383 — John Robert Blakey, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED APRIL 9, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 2, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before KANNE, BARRETT, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\\n BARRETT, Circuit Judge. One afternoon in 2014, three Chi-\\ncago police officers stopped three black men in a grey sedan\\nto investigate a nearby shooting that had happened a few\\nhours earlier. When the passengers sued the officers a year\\nlater, none of the officers remembered the Terry stop. Lacking\\nrecall, they relied on other evidence to show that reasonable\\nsuspicion had existed for it. Cell phone footage taken by one\\n\\f2 No. 18-1935\\n\\nof the plaintiffs during the encounter depicted Sergeant Rob-\\nert King, the officer who initiated the stop, citing the plain-\\ntiffs’ suspicious behavior in the area of the shooting as the rea-\\nson that he had pulled them over. And a police report showed\\nthat dispatches to officers investigating the shooting, includ-\\ning King, identified the suspects as three black men in a grey\\ncar. The descriptions of the car’s model varied, and none was\\nan exact match for the car that the plaintiffs were driving. But\\nreasonable suspicion can exist without an exact match, and\\nthe district court held that these descriptions were close\\nenough to justify the Terry stop. In any event, the court said,\\nthe officers were entitled to qualified immunity because the\\nstop did not violate clearly established law.\\n Before us, the plaintiffs have repeatedly suggested that the\\ndefendants’ failure of memory is a concession of liability. In\\nother words, they maintain that if a police officer doesn’t re-\\nmember a stop now, reasonable suspicion could not have jus-\\ntified it at the time. But the Fourth Amendment does not gov-\\nern how an officer proves that he had reasonable suspicion for\\na Terry stop; he can rely on evidence other than his memory\\nto establish what he knew when the stop occurred. The police\\nreport demonstrates that King knew that the suspects in the\\nshooting had been identified as three black men driving a\\ngrey car, and the cell-phone video shows him giving the\\nshooting as the reason for the stop. We agree with the district\\ncourt that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.\\n I.\\n On the morning of September 23, 2014, a drive-by shoot-\\ning occurred about half a mile from Manley High School,\\nwhich is located on West Polk Street in Chicago. Sergeant\\nRobert King was on duty that day as a “school sergeant”—an\\n\\fNo. 18-1935 3\\n\\nofficer who responds to and investigates violence near\\nschools within his beat. A police report detailing the chronol-\\nogy of events related to the shooting shows that King re-\\nsponded to the shooting and that three descriptions of sus-\\npects were received while he was assisting.1 One identified\\nthe suspects’ vehicle as a newer-model grey Nissan with three\\nblack male occupants. The second was almost identical to the\\nfirst but specified that the Nissan was an SUV. The third iden-\\ntified the shooter as a medium-complected black male wear-\\ning a white t-shirt and driving a grey Trailblazer (a Chevrolet\\nSUV).\\n Shortly past noon on that same day, Marcus Torry and\\nWilliam Roberts picked up Latrell Goss, Torry’s brother, in a\\ngrey Ford Fusion sedan. Goss’s car had broken down on West\\nPolk Street; Torry and Roberts met him at his car and then\\ndrove him west on West Polk to an auto parts store. They\\npassed Manley High School as they drove to the store, and\\nthey passed it again when they returned the same way. As\\nthey went by the school for the second time, they were pulled\\nover by three police officers—King, Jacek Leja, and Justin Rae-\\nther. Torry captured video of the ensuing encounter on his\\ncell phone camera. Like the district court, we draw our de-\\n\\n\\n 1 This report is from the Office of Emergency Management and Com-\\nmunications and is called a “Chicago Police Department Event Query Re-\\nport.” For simplicity’s sake, we will refer to it as a “police report.” The\\nrecord also contains post-dated supplementary reports that expand on the\\ninformation contained in the police report. The parties dispute the admis-\\nsibility of these supplementary reports, but because they are not necessary\\nto show that King knew about the shooting and suspect descriptions, we\\ndo not address them.\\n\\f4 No. 18-1935\\n\\nscription of the encounter primarily from the video, supple-\\nmenting it with other undisputed facts and drawing all infer-\\nences in the plaintiffs’ favor.2\\n After Torry pulled over, King approached his window\\nand asked for his license and registration. Torry asked why\\nhe had been stopped, and King replied that “this was about\\nyour third pass by this school.” Torry protested that he had\\nnot driven by the school three times and handed over his li-\\ncense and registration. King told him not to argue; Torry de-\\nmanded King’s badge number.\\n King told Torry to step out of the car and reached for the\\nhandle of the driver’s door, which prompted Torry to ask if\\nhe was under arrest. King didn’t directly answer the question\\nbut said, “Sir, get out of the car please. Sir, this is a Terry stop,\\nI have the right to search the car, get out of the car.” Torry,\\nprotesting that he had done nothing wrong, failed to comply\\nwith multiple commands that he exit the vehicle. King told\\nTorry, “If you don’t get out of the car, I will remove you from\\nthe car,” and Torry replied, “I’m gonna remove myself but I\\njust don’t want to get—y’all get me, shoot me, or kill me for\\nsomething I didn’t do wrong.” King responded, “Yes, sir, ab-\\nsolutely; hands up, don’t shoot, there you go.” Neither King\\nnor the other officers had a gun out, but Torry feared police\\nbrutality.\\n Torry testified that when he finally removed his seatbelt,\\nKing “just grab[bed] me out of the car.” King ordered Torry\\nto “come on out, sir,” as Torry repeatedly exclaimed, “Please\\n\\n 2 Neither side contests the admissibility of the video, which the plain-\\ntiffs and defendants introduced as a joint exhibit in the district court. The\\nvideo runs the full length of the stop.\\n\\fNo. 18-1935 5\\n\\ndon’t shoot.” King walked Torry to a squad car, saying, “Let’s\\ngo back to my car, sir, right over here,” and placed him inside.\\nGoss testified that an officer grabbed him out of the car too,\\nbut neither Goss nor Roberts were placed in a squad car. After\\nthe plaintiffs had been repeatedly ordered to leave the car but\\nbefore they had complied, one of the officers shook a can of\\nmace, although he never used it.\\n After placing Torry in the back of his squad car, King sat\\nin the front for a few minutes while he ran Torry’s name\\nthrough a warrant check. Torry demanded to know why he\\nhad been pulled over, and King explained that Torry had\\n“cruised this street here around the school,” which was an\\narea of “safe passage” and “the immediate location of a shoot-\\ning this morning.” (An area of “safe passage” is a designated\\narea where extra precautions are taken to prevent violence\\nthat might affect students on their way to and from school.)\\nKing then returned to Torry’s car, where the officers talked to\\nGoss and Roberts, who testified that the other officers patted\\nthem down and searched Goss’s pockets. Still in the squad\\ncar, Torry yelled obscenities and protests while continuing to\\nfilm with his cell phone camera. At one point, Goss ap-\\nproached the car and told him to be quiet, to which Torry re-\\nsponded, “Leave me alone!”\\n Roughly ten minutes into the stop and eight minutes after\\nputting Torry in the squad car, King retrieved Torry and\\nwalked him back to his own car. Torry asked if he was under\\narrest, to which King answered, “If you were under arrest,\\nyou’d be in handcuffs.” Torry got in his car, and King re-\\nturned his license and registration. Shortly after, one of the\\nofficers said to Goss that “you don’t want anything to do with\\nhim,” and—in response to an unintelligible reply—said,\\n\\f6 No. 18-1935\\n\\n“Yeah, c’mon, jump in the car … yeah we’ll give you a ride\\nhome.” Goss testified that the officers had told him to get in\\ntheir car to return to his disabled car.\\n Free to leave, Torry and Roberts pulled back onto West\\nPolk Street. Torry continued his video recording, narrating\\nthat the officers were driving behind his car. Goss, riding in\\nthe back seat of Leja and Raether’s car, testified that those of-\\nficers debated pulling Torry over again “to mess with him.”\\nBut the officers dropped Goss off at his car and nothing else\\nhappened.\\n One year later, Torry, Goss, and Roberts sued the three\\nofficers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the officers\\nlacked reasonable suspicion to initiate the Terry stop, and that\\neven if the stop was justified, its scope transformed it into a\\nde facto arrest without probable cause.3 By the time the\\nplaintiffs filed suit, none of the officers could recall the stop.\\nNor could King recall any details about the shooting. It was\\nundisputed, though, that the shooting occurred while King\\nwas on duty in that area as a school sergeant, and the police\\nreport detailing the investigation’s chronology reflected that\\nKing responded as an assist vehicle to the shooting, drove\\naround the corner to the victim’s residence a few minutes\\nlater, and continued to assist until 9:49 a.m., when the report\\nnotes him as “clear.” During the hour or so that King was on\\nthe shot call, three suspect descriptions were transmitted to\\ninvestigators: one that identified the suspects’ car as a newer-\\nmodel grey Nissan with three black male occupants, a second\\n\\n\\n 3 The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed other claims that they had as-\\nserted against the officers.\\n\\fNo. 18-1935 7\\n\\nthat was almost identical to the first but specified that the\\nNissan was an SUV,4 and a third that identified the shooter as\\na medium-complected black male wearing a white t-shirt and\\ndriving a grey Trailblazer.\\n Based on that report and his review of Torry’s video, King\\ntestified by affidavit that the dispatches would have alerted\\nhim that the suspects were three black men driving a grey car,\\nand, as the video reflected, that he told Torry—who was driv-\\ning a grey car with three black male occupants—that he had\\nstopped him because of the shooting. The plaintiffs and the\\ndefendants filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and\\nthe district court granted summary judgment to the defend-\\nants.\\n II.\\n The primary theme of the plaintiffs’ argument is that prov-\\ning reasonable suspicion for the stop requires the officers to\\nhave at least some independent memory of what they knew\\nat the time. The plaintiffs particularly object, therefore, to the\\ndistrict court’s reliance on indirect evidence—the police re-\\nport and King’s affidavit—to conclude that the officers had\\nreasonable suspicion to pull them over. They offer four rea-\\nsons why the district court was wrong to consider this evi-\\ndence: first, the officers submitted it in response to the plain-\\ntiffs’ motion for summary judgment rather than in support of\\n\\n\\n 4 This second entry lacks a timestamp and so may have been received\\nlater. But because identifying the car as an SUV weakens the officers’ ar-\\ngument for reasonable suspicion and because we must take the facts in the\\nlight most favorable to the plaintiffs, we presume that this description had\\nbeen received by the time of the stop. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zen-\\nith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).\\n\\f8 No. 18-1935\\n\\ntheir own motion; second, King’s affidavit was a sham be-\\ncause it contradicted his prior testimony; third, the police re-\\nport was hearsay; and fourth, King’s lack of memory pre-\\ncludes him from relying on the collective knowledge doctrine.\\nNone of these arguments succeeds.\\n To begin with, it doesn’t matter that the officers submitted\\nthe report and affidavit in their response to the plaintiffs’ mo-\\ntion for summary judgment rather than in support of their\\nown motion. In adjudicating a motion for summary judg-\\nment, “[a] court need consider only the cited materials, but it\\nmay consider other materials in the record.” FED. R. CIV. P.\\n56(c)(3). The court was therefore free to consider evidence\\nsubmitted in response to one motion when it decided the\\nother. Indeed, it would have been odd for the court to ignore\\nthe report and affidavit, because they were obviously relevant\\nto the defendants’ cross-motion on the very same issues. See\\nLas Vegas Sands, LLC v. Nehme, 632 F.3d 526, 532 (9th Cir. 2011)\\n(“Where the parties file cross-motions for summary judg-\\nment, the court must consider each party’s evidence, regard-\\nless under which motion the evidence is offered.”). The plain-\\ntiffs had an opportunity to—and did—address the evidence\\nin their own brief, and they don’t suggest that they were in-\\nappropriately prejudiced by its consideration. Cf. Simpson v.\\nMerchs. Recovery Bureau, Inc., 171 F.3d 546, 551 (7th Cir. 1999)\\n(explaining that summary judgment may be granted sua\\nsponte “so long as the opposing party has had an adequate\\nopportunity to respond.” (citation omitted)). This argument\\nfor excluding the report and affidavit fails.\\n The plaintiffs’ next argument—that the court should have\\nexcluded King’s affidavit as a sham—fares no better. Accord-\\ning to the plaintiffs, King made several admissions during\\n\\fNo. 18-1935 9\\n\\ndiscovery that effectively conceded his liability, and his affi-\\ndavit contradicts these admissions because it explains why\\nKing had reasonable suspicion for the stop. Thus, they insist,\\nthe court was obliged to exclude the affidavit as a sham. See\\nBank of Illinois v. Allied Signal Safety Restraint Sys., 75 F.3d 1162,\\n1168 (7th Cir. 1996) (“[P]arties cannot thwart the purposes of\\nRule 56 by creating ‘sham’ issues of fact with affidavits that\\ncontradict their prior depositions.”). The premise of the plain-\\ntiffs’ argument is flawed, however, because King’s affidavit\\ndoes not contradict his prior admissions. King never con-\\nceded that he stopped the plaintiffs unlawfully; he stated that\\nhe had no independent memory of the incident. Admitting to\\na lack of memory is a far cry from admitting that the opposing\\nparty’s version of events is correct. See Brown v. County of Cook,\\n661 F.3d 333, 338 (7th Cir. 2011). Rather than contradicting his\\nprior admissions, King’s affidavit explained the newly intro-\\nduced police report and how it bore on the stop. The district\\ncourt did not abuse its “great discretion” by considering\\nKing’s testimony. See Maldonado v. U.S. Bank, 186 F.3d 759, 769\\n(7th Cir. 1999); cf. Bank of Illinois, 75 F.3d at 1172 (approving\\nconsideration of even contradictory affidavits if based on new\\nevidence).\\n The plaintiffs’ next argument—that the police report was\\ninadmissible hearsay—is their most underdeveloped. They\\ninsist that the report is hearsay, but they never articulate why\\nany of the statements within the report was offered as proof\\nof the truth of the matter asserted. See FED. R. EVID. 801(c)(2)\\n(“‘Hearsay’ means a statement that … a party offers in evi-\\ndence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the state-\\nment.”). Their failure to develop this argument is enough to\\ndispense with it. See Mathews v. REV Recreation Grp., Inc., No.\\n18-1982, 2019 WL 3369563, at *3 n.2 (7th Cir. July 26, 2019). We\\n\\f10 No. 18-1935\\n\\nobserve, however, that many of the statements were obvi-\\nously not offered for their truth. For example, the descriptions\\nof the shooters (three black men) and their vehicle (a grey Nis-\\nsan, a grey Trailblazer, or a grey Nissan SUV) were not of-\\nfered to show what the real shooters looked like or what car\\nthey were actually driving. The descriptions were offered to\\nshow that a competent officer aware of that information could\\nconclude that there was reasonable suspicion to stop Torry\\nand his passengers. See Woods v. City of Chicago, 234 F.3d 979,\\n986–87 (7th Cir. 2000) (a statement in a police report is not\\nhearsay if it is offered “to show the effect that the statements\\nhad on the officers” who heard it); id. at 987 (explaining that\\nthe Fourth Amendment analysis does not turn on whether the\\ninformation in the tips turns out to be true). Statements intro-\\nduced to show their effect on the listener, rather than the truth\\nof the matter they assert, are not hearsay. See 4 CHRISTOPHER\\nB. MUELLER & LAIRD C. KIRKPATRICK, FEDERAL EVIDENCE § 8:20\\n(4th ed. 2013).\\n We will assume for the sake of argument that the entries\\nreflecting King’s response to the shooting were offered for\\ntheir truth.5 Even if they were, however, the plaintiffs don’t\\n\\n\\n 5 It is doubtful, though, that even these statements are hearsay. The\\nfact that King was participating in the investigation is implicit in the en-\\ntries describing his response to the shot call, but that is not what the de-\\nclarant was intentionally trying to convey. Assertions often reflect a de-\\nclarant’s underlying assumptions, but only the assertions themselves meet\\nRule 801’s definition of hearsay. See FED. R. EVID. 801(1) (“‘Statement’\\nmeans a person’s oral assertion, written assertion, or nonverbal conduct,\\nif the person intended it as an assertion.” (emphasis added)); see also 4\\nMUELLER & KIRKPATRICK, supra, § 8:24. United States v. Zenni is the classic\\nexample. See 492 F. Supp. 464, 469 (E.D. Ky. 1980) (callers placing bets did\\n\\fNo. 18-1935 11\\n\\ncounter the defendants’ argument that the entire report is ad-\\nmissible under the business records exception. See FED. R.\\nEVID. 803(6). That exception applies if five conditions are met:\\n(1) “the record was made at or near the time by—or from in-\\nformation transmitted by—someone with knowledge”; (2)\\n“the record was kept in the ordinary course of a regularly con-\\nducted activity of a business, organization, occupation, or\\ncalling”; (3) “making the record was a regular practice of that\\nactivity”; (4) “all these conditions are shown by the testimony\\nof a custodian or another qualified witness”; and (5) “the op-\\nponent does not show that the source of the information or\\nthe method or circumstances of preparation indicate a lack of\\ntrustworthiness.” Id. The only factor that the plaintiffs come\\nclose to discussing is the fourth: they seem to argue that King\\nwas not qualified to authenticate the report because he could\\nnot remember receiving the transmissions that it recorded.\\nBut to authenticate a business record, a qualified witness\\n“need not be in control of or have individual knowledge of\\nthe particular [] records”; he “need only be familiar with the\\n[] recordkeeping practices.” Thanongsinh v. Bd. of Educ., 462\\nF.3d 762, 777 (7th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). In his affidavit,\\nKing testified that each of the conditions was satisfied. Plain-\\ntiffs have not argued otherwise. Because the report is a busi-\\nness record, all of its statements are admissible for their truth.6\\n\\n\\nnot intend to assert that they were telephoning a betting establishment, so\\nthe statements were not hearsay when offered for that purpose).\\n 6 It is true that any statements in the report made by those outside of\\nthe police force constitute “hearsay within hearsay” and would need to be\\nthemselves justified by a hearsay exception. The plaintiffs do not identify\\nany such statements in the report, so they have forfeited any argument for\\n\\f12 No. 18-1935\\n\\n The plaintiffs point out that while the police report shows\\nthat descriptions of the suspects were transmitted to investi-\\ngators, it does not expressly note whether the investigators\\nreceived them. The district court properly concluded, though,\\nthat we can impute that knowledge to King via the collective\\nknowledge doctrine. “[W]hen officers are in communication\\nwith each other while working together at a scene, their\\nknowledge may be mutually imputed even when there is no\\nexpress testimony that the specific or detailed information\\ncreating the justification for a stop was conveyed.” United\\nStates v. Nafzger, 974 F.2d 906, 911 (7th Cir. 1992); see also\\nUnited States v. Sawyer, 224 F.3d 675, 680 (7th Cir. 2000). That\\nis true even when the communication is by dispatch rather\\nthan face-to-face. See Sawyer, 224 F.3d at 680. King’s presence\\nat and involvement in the shooting investigation—bolstered\\nby his testimony that suspect descriptions are typically shared\\nwith officers at the scene and through the Office of Emergency\\nManagement and Communications—are enough to attribute\\nthe knowledge to him.\\n Because the report establishes that King was aware of both\\nthe shooting and the suspect descriptions, the court appropri-\\nately treated those as undisputed facts when considering\\nwhether reasonable suspicion for the Terry stop existed.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\ntheir exclusion. For the sake of completeness, however, we note that the\\nmost obvious candidates are the witnesses’ descriptions of the shooters.\\nAs we have already explained, they were not offered for their truth. Even\\nif they had been, though, they would have been admissible as present-\\nsense impressions. See FED. R. EVID. 803(1) (defining a present sense im-\\npression as “[a] statement describing or explaining an event or condition,\\nmade while or immediately after the declarant perceived it”).\\n\\fNo. 18-1935 13\\n\\n III.\\n That brings us to the reasonableness of the stop. The plain-\\ntiffs argue that it violated the Fourth Amendment, given that\\nthe shooting had occurred several hours earlier and that\\nTorry’s car was a different model than the one identified in\\nthe department’s transmissions to investigators. The defend-\\nants contend that the stop was lawful and that they are in any\\nevent entitled to qualified immunity.\\n Qualified immunity protects government officials from li-\\nability for civil damages as long as their actions do not violate\\n“clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which\\na reasonable person would have known.” Figgs v. Dawson, 829\\nF.3d 895, 905 (7th Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). Thus, to win,\\nthe plaintiffs must show not only that the stop was unlawful,\\nbut also that the unlawfulness of the stop was clearly estab-\\nlished at the time that it occurred. Because the plaintiffs can-\\nnot make the latter showing, we need not consider whether\\nthe stop violated the Fourth Amendment. See Pearson v. Calla-\\nhan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 (2009) (“[C]ourts of appeals should be\\npermitted to exercise their sound discretion in deciding which\\nof the two prongs of the qualified immunity analysis should\\nbe addressed first ….”).\\n The “demanding standard” that the law be “clearly estab-\\nlished” for liability to attach “protects ‘all but the plainly in-\\ncompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.’” District\\nof Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577, 589 (2018) (quoting Malley\\nv. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986)). For the law to be “clearly\\nestablished,” existing precedent must have placed the unlaw-\\nfulness of the stop “beyond debate.” Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563\\nU.S. 731, 741 (2011). It is usually necessary to identify an in-\\nstance in which “an officer acting under similar circumstances\\n\\f14 No. 18-1935\\n\\n… was held to have violated the Fourth Amendment,” though\\nin the “rare ‘obvious case’” the violation may be sufficiently\\nclear “even though existing precedent does not address simi-\\nlar circumstances.” Wesby, 138 S. Ct. at 590 (alteration in orig-\\ninal) (citations omitted).\\n The general rule established by Terry v. Ohio is that officers\\nmay conduct a brief investigatory stop if they reasonably sus-\\npect that an individual has committed or is about to commit\\na crime. 392 U.S. 1, 20–22 (1968). Reasonable suspicion is a\\nlower standard than probable cause. See Navarette v. California,\\n572 U.S. 393, 397 (2014). It’s a “commonsense, nontechnical\\n[standard] that deal[s] with ‘the factual and practical consid-\\nerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent\\nmen, not legal technicians, act.’” Ornelas v. United States, 517\\nU.S. 690, 695 (1996) (citation omitted). It is judged holistically,\\nbased on “the sum of all of the information known to officers\\nat the time of the stop.” See Matz v. Klotka, 769 F.3d 517, 523\\n(7th Cir. 2014).\\n The plaintiffs do not contend that this is the rare case in\\nwhich the facts establish a blatant violation of Terry’s rule\\neven though there is no case on point. See Wesby, 138 S. Ct. at\\n590. Instead, they identify two cases that they say clearly es-\\ntablished the illegality of this Terry stop: Gentry v. Sevier, 597\\nF.3d 838 (7th Cir. 2010), and United States v. Packer, 15 F.3d 654\\n(7th Cir. 1994). In Gentry, a police officer stopped someone af-\\nter hearing a dispatch report that a suspicious person was\\npushing a wheelbarrow. 597 F.3d at 842–43. In Packer, police\\nofficers stopped a vehicle’s occupants based on a citizen’s re-\\nport that a suspicious vehicle was parked along the street at\\none o’clock in the morning. 15 F.3d at 658. Neither report pro-\\nvided any facts concerning any crime that the people stopped\\n\\fNo. 18-1935 15\\n\\nwere suspected of committing—they were stopped just be-\\ncause they looked suspicious. In both cases, therefore, the of-\\nficers “lacked the minimal detail of information that would\\npoint to any arguably particularized suspicion of criminal\\nconduct.” Green v. Newport, 868 F.3d 629, 634 (7th Cir. 2017)\\n(citation omitted).\\n Neither Gentry nor Packer speaks to a situation like this\\none, where the plaintiffs partially matched the description of\\nsuspects involved in a drive-by shooting. When the officers in\\nthis case stopped the plaintiffs, they knew that three black\\nmen in a grey car were suspected of committing a nearby\\nshooting earlier that day. The plaintiffs matched this descrip-\\ntion in number, race, and car color. Cf. United States v. Lenoir,\\n318 F.3d 725, 729 (7th Cir. 2003) (“[P]olice observation of an\\nindividual, fitting a police dispatch description of a person in-\\nvolved in a disturbance, near in time and geographic location\\nto the disturbance establishes a reasonable suspicion that the\\nindividual is the subject of the dispatch.”). The plaintiffs ar-\\ngue that the reasonableness of the officers’ suspicion was nev-\\nertheless undermined in two ways: first, the descriptions that\\nthe officers relied on identified the suspects’ vehicle as an\\nSUV, but the plaintiffs were in a sedan; and second, the shoot-\\ning occurred too far away (half a mile) and too long before\\n(four hours) to justify the stop. But while these discrepancies\\nmay weigh against the officers’ suspicion, they don’t clearly\\novercome it.\\n We’ll begin with the variation between Torry’s car and the\\ndescriptions of the suspects’ car. Under our precedent, an im-\\nperfect match between a suspect and a description does not\\nnecessarily make an officer’s suspicion unreasonable. See, e.g.,\\n\\f16 No. 18-1935\\n\\nD.Z. v. Buell, 796 F.3d 749, 754 (7th Cir. 2015) (finding reason-\\nable suspicion to stop an individual “who somewhat matched\\nthe description of the suspect”). And the significance of the\\nimperfect match may have been lessened here because there\\nwere multiple reports giving conflicting information about\\nthe suspects’ grey car. One report identified it as a Nissan,\\nwithout giving a model; another identified it as a Nissan SUV;\\nand a third identified it as a Trailblazer (an SUV made by\\nChevrolet). The fact that the reports’ descriptions of the car\\nwere consistent only as to its grey color gave the officers some\\nreason to pay more attention to the color than to the make or\\nmodel. No clearly established law holds that this kind of var-\\niation makes an officer’s suspicion unreasonable under the\\nFourth Amendment.\\n As for the time and place discrepancies, past cases have\\nnot established that they’re enough to defeat reasonable sus-\\npicion. In United States v. Tilmon, for example, we found a stop\\nreasonable based on the “match of a unique automobile with\\na driver fitting the general description of the bank robber,”\\neven though the stop occurred two hours after and fifty miles\\naway from the robbery. 19 F.3d 1221, 1225 (7th Cir. 1994). This\\nstop occurred four hours after but only a half-mile away from\\nthe shooting and within the “safe passage” area surrounding\\nManley High School.\\n Finally, the officers’ suspicion was not based solely on the\\ndescriptions of the suspects. The plaintiffs had also passed by\\nthe same area multiple times, behavior that could suggest that\\nthey were casing it in preparation for further criminal activity\\nrelated to the dispute underlying the shooting. Cf. Green, 868\\nF.3d at 634 (circling an auto parts store’s parking lot multiple\\n\\fNo. 18-1935 17\\n\\ntimes near the close of business contributed to an officer’s rea-\\nsonable suspicion). Taking all of this evidence together, a rea-\\nsonable officer could have concluded that the investigative\\nTerry stop of the plaintiffs comported with the Fourth\\nAmendment. See Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 641\\n(1987).\\n IV.\\n Finally, the plaintiffs argue that even if the stop was ini-\\ntially justified, it exceeded its appropriate bounds and turned\\ninto a de facto arrest. They argue that taking Torry’s identifi-\\ncation and placing him in the back of the squad car was more\\nintrusive than was warranted for the Terry stop, and thus\\ntransformed the encounter into an arrest without probable\\ncause.\\n The district court concluded both that the scope of the stop\\nwas lawful and that the officers were entitled to qualified im-\\nmunity regardless. The plaintiffs challenge only one of those\\nholdings: the lawfulness of the stop. Because they do not chal-\\nlenge the district court’s alternative holding that the defend-\\nants are entitled to qualified immunity, they have forfeited\\nthis argument. See United States v. Giovannetti, 919 F.2d 1223,\\n1230 (7th Cir. 1990) (“A litigant who fails to press a point by\\nsupporting it with pertinent authority, or by showing why it\\nis a good point despite a lack of supporting authority or in the\\nface of contrary authority, forfeits the point.” (emphasis omit-\\nted)). We note, however, that our precedent on the permissi-\\nble scope of a Terry stop would have made this a tough argu-\\nment for the plaintiffs to win. In United States v. Bullock, for\\nexample, we held that a defendant being handcuffed, placed\\nin a squad car, and transported back to a house that he had\\nrecently left didn’t transform a Terry stop into an arrest. See\\n\\f18 No. 18-1935\\n\\n632 F.3d 1004, 1016 (7th Cir. 2011). We specifically noted that\\nbecause the officers suspected that the defendant was selling\\ndrugs—a crime “associated with dangerous and violent be-\\nhavior”—detention in the squad car was a reasonable precau-\\ntion. Id. In the face of decisions like Bullock, the plaintiffs in\\nthis case would have a difficult time showing that detaining a\\ndrive-by shooting suspect in a squad car for approximately\\neight minutes clearly rose to the level of a formal arrest re-\\nquiring probable cause under the law at that time.\\n ***\\n Because the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity,\\nthe judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3782,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4645572,"string":"4,645,572"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"In RE: Scott N. JAFFE, Debtor-Appellee, Appeal Of: Laverne Williams."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Laverne Williams v. Scott Jaffe"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-08-05"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-2726"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Bauer, Hamilton, Brennan\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"William Joseph Bauer\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\nNo. 18-2726\\n\\nIN RE: SCOTT N. JAFFE,\\n Debtor-Appellee,\\nAPPEAL OF: LAVERNE WILLIAMS.\\n\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 17 C 04662 — John J. Tharp, Jr., Judge.\\n\\n\\n\\n ARGUED FEBRUARY 7, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 5, 2019\\n\\n\\n Before BAUER, HAMILTON, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\\n BAUER, Circuit Judge. Section 522(b)(1) of the United States\\nBankruptcy Code states that a “debtor may exempt from\\nproperty of the [bankruptcy] estate the property listed in either\\nparagraph (2) or, in the alternative paragraph (3).” At issue in\\nthis case is paragraph (3) subsection (B), which states, in full,\\nthat:\\n Property listed in this paragraph is any interest\\n in property which the debtor had, immediately\\n before the commencement of the case, an inter-\\n est as a tenant by the entirety or joint tenant to\\n\\f2 No. 18-2726\\n\\n the extent that such interest as a tenant by the\\n entirety or joint tenant is exempt from process\\n under applicable nonbankruptcy law.\\n11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(3)(B). We must determine to what extent\\ncontingent future interests created by Illinois law are exempt\\nunder this section. The most natural reading of the statute\\nexempts any interest held by an individual as a tenant by the\\nentirety to the extent that state law exempts that particular\\ninterest. The district court found that any interest held by the\\ndebtor is exempt to the extent that state law exempted the\\nentirety interest. We reverse the district court and hold that the\\ndebtor’s property cannot be excluded from the bankruptcy\\nestate.\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n In 1998, Laverne Williams wanted to file a medical malprac-\\ntice lawsuit and hired Scott Jaffe to be her attorney. The statute\\nof limitations expired before Jaffe filed a complaint and\\nWilliams sued for legal malpractice, obtained a default\\njudgment, and recorded that judgment on a property that Jaffe\\nand his wife owned as tenants by the entirety. Williams now\\nclaims post-judgment interest brings her total claim against\\nJaffe to $1.04 million.\\n Jaffe filed a chapter 7 bankruptcy petition in November\\n2015, which identified his debt to Williams and indicated it\\nwas secured by a judgment lien on his residence. On the\\npetition date Jaffe and his wife owned the property as tenants\\nby the entirety, but before bankruptcy proceedings were\\ncomplete Jaffe’s wife died. According to Illinois law, when his\\nwife died the tenancy by the entirety terminated and Jaffe held\\n\\fNo. 18-2726 3\\n\\nthe property individually in fee simple. To avoid the judgment\\nlien Jaffe filed a motion in the bankruptcy court arguing the\\nproperty was exempt under 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(3)(B). Williams\\nresponded that the property was not exempt because the\\nfederal bankruptcy provision that Jaffe relied upon looks to\\nstate law to determine whether a tenancy property is exempt.\\nBecause Illinois does not exempt contingent future interests,\\nWilliams argued, the federal bankruptcy statute does not allow\\nJaffe to exempt the property from the bankruptcy estate. On\\nappeal the parties renew these arguments.\\n II. DISCUSSION\\n We must first determine whether a lien exists and what\\ninterests it attached to. If no lien exists the debtor cannot seek\\nan exemption under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f) and our inquiry is\\ncomplete. See In re Chinosorn, 243 B.R. 688, 694 (Bankr. N.D. Ill.\\n2000) (noting there are “three elements for lien avoidance: (1) a\\nlien must have fixed on an interest of the debtor in property,\\n(2) the lien must impair an exemption to which the debtor\\nwould have been entitled under § 522(b), and (3) the lien must\\nbe a judicial lien—with the debtor bearing the burden of each\\nelement.”). If a lien attached we must also determine to what\\ninterests it attached. Jaffe argues that, if any lien exists, it\\nattached only to his tenancy interest which is exempt under\\nIllinois law. Williams asserts her lien attached to Jaffe’s\\ncontingent future interest in the property. If we determine a\\nlien attached to a property interest we must then determine\\nwhether that interest is exempt under § 522(b)(3)(B). We will\\naddress each issue in turn.\\n\\f4 No. 18-2726\\n\\n A. The Existence of a Lien\\n If a judicial lien attaches to property that is entitled to\\nexemption from the bankruptcy estate, § 522(f) allows the\\ndebtor to avoid the fixing of the lien. See 11 U.S.C. § 522(f).\\nIllinois courts have not decided whether a judgment lien\\nattaches to the individual interests (in particular contingent\\nfuture interests) of a tenant by the entirety. Where a state’s\\nhighest court has not ruled on an issue, we must apply the law\\nin a manner we believe the state supreme court would, if\\npresented with the issue. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Statewide\\nIns. Co., 352 F.3d 1098, 1100 (7th Cir. 2003).\\n To answer this question we turn to the applicable Illinois\\nstatutes, which have long controlled the attachment of judg-\\nment liens. Lehman v. Cottrell, 19 N.E.2d 111, 114 (2d Dist. 1939)\\n(“At common law, land was subject neither to execution nor to\\nthe lien of a judgment. Both these results are purely statu-\\ntory.”). Section 12–101 of the Illinois code creates judgment\\nliens and controls their ability to attach to certain property\\ninterests. The statute dictates that judgment liens may attach to\\nall “real estate” and defines “real estate” broadly to include all\\n“lands, tenements, hereditaments, and all legal and equitable\\nrights therein.” 735 ILCS 5/12–105.\\n The Illinois legislature enumerated the precise interests\\ntenants by the entirety enjoy individually, including the\\nfollowing contingent future interests: “(a) an interest as a\\ntenant in common in the event of a divorce, (b) an interest as a\\njoint tenant in the event that another homestead is established,\\nand (c) a survivorship interest in the entire property in the\\nevent of the other tenant’s death.” 765 ILCS 1005/1c. These\\n\\fNo. 18-2726 5\\n\\ncontingent future interests fall within the statute’s broad\\ndefinition of “real estate.” Therefore, a judgment lien attaches\\nto these individual interests, absent some exception. See In re\\nTolson, 338 B.R. 359, 369 (C.D. Ill. 2005). The only exception that\\n12-101 identifies is section 12-901—the homestead exception.\\nSee 735 ILCS 5/12-901 (the “homestead and all rights in and\\ntitle to that homestead is exempt from attachment, judgment,\\nlevy or judgment sale for the payment of his or her debts or\\nother purposes … .”).\\n Otherwise, “where the Illinois legislature has determined\\nthat a judgment lien should not be created as to a debtor’s\\ninterest in particular property, it has provided that\\nthe property is ‘exempt from judgment,’ see 735 ILCS 5/12-1001\\n(specified personal property), or that it is not ‘subject to any\\nlien,’ see 820 ILCS 305/21 (workers’ compensation award).”\\nChinosorn, 243 B.R. at 695–95. But Illinois does not “exempt\\nfrom judgment” interests held in tenancy by the entirety or\\ncontingent future interests held by tenants by the entirety.\\nIllinois law merely exempts the tenancy interest from the\\nattachment of a judgment lien. 735 ILCS 5/12-112. Section 12-\\n112 provides that judgment liens may attach to all “lands,\\ntenements, goods and chattels.” It then carves out a narrow\\nexception, the tenancy interest, without mentioning the\\ncontingent future interests explicitly created by the Illinois\\nlegislature.\\n It is clear that if the Illinois legislature wanted to exempt\\nparticular interests from the attachment of judgment liens, it\\nhad no problem in doing so. Because the Illinois legislature\\nfailed to do so, we find that Williams’s judgment lien attached\\nto Jaffe’s contingent future interest in the property. See Yotis,\\n\\f6 No. 18-2726\\n\\n518 B.R. at 486–90; Tolson, 338 B.R. at 367 (holding that “the\\ncontingent right of survivorship of each entireties tenant is a\\npresent property right to which a judgment lien extends.”).\\n B. Exemption Under § 522(b)(3)(B)\\n Tenancy by the entirety is a form of property ownership\\nthat arose out of common law and developed as part of the\\nEnglish feudal system. Oval A. Phipps, Tenancy by the Entire-\\nties, 25 Temp. L.Q. 24 (1951). Until the nineteenth century,\\nmarried women in the United States were subject to coverture.\\nThis meant a wife’s legal identity and property were absorbed\\nby her husband and he was granted legal dominion over\\neverything. Id. Therefore, if a married couple purchased\\nproperty, it could not be owned by the husband and wife\\nbecause both spouses were considered a single legal entity (the\\nhusband). Id. Tenancy by the entirety was created so spouses\\ncould own property jointly and upon the death of one spouse\\nthe property would belong to the surviving spouse. Then,\\n“during the middle and latter part of the nineteenth century,\\nas part of a reform movement aimed at emancipating married\\nwomen from their state of social and economic dependency,\\nthe Married Women’s Property Acts were enacted practically\\nuniversally by the legislatures of the several states.” Id.\\n Following the passage of the Married Women’s Property\\nActs, states splintered in their approach to tenancy by the\\nentirety. Many state courts thought the acts destroyed tenancy\\nby the entirety and a few courts held they were unaffected;\\nseveral state courts gave both spouses the rights of the hus-\\nband under common law and a large number of states found\\nboth spouses had only the limited interests a wife previously\\n\\fNo. 18-2726 7\\n\\nhad under common law. Chinosorn, 243 B.R. at 692–93 (collect-\\ning cases). States also divided over whether tenancy by the\\nentirety encompassed real property and personal property, or\\njust real property. Id. at 693. The Illinois judiciary found that\\nthe state’s Married Women’s Act abolished tenancy by the\\nentirety but, in 1990, the legislature codified tenancy by the\\nentirety for real estate owned by spouses who were using the\\nproperty as their homestead. 765 ILCS 1005/1c.\\n Jurisdictions that recognize tenancy by the entirety,\\nhowever, are not uniform in their approach to creditors’ rights\\nagainst the estate:\\n A creditor’s right to levy on a married person’s\\n property is complex, and varies by state and the\\n type of debt and property. Every state allows\\n satisfaction of a debt which has been jointly\\n incurred by a husband and wife against jointly\\n held property, even if that property is held in a\\n tenancy by the entirety … . Some states allow\\n the satisfaction of an individual spouse’s debt\\n against entireties property, but most do not.\\nCreditors’ Rights Against Entireties Property In and Out of\\nBankruptcy, 1983 Ann. Surv. of Bankr. Law Part II (September\\n1983). With this kaleidoscopic background in mind, we turn\\nto the bankruptcy aspect of this case.\\n A debtor’s bankruptcy estate must include “all legal or\\nequitable interests of the debtor in property as of the com-\\nmencement of the case.” 11 U.S.C. § 541(a). This includes an\\nindividual debtor’s interest in property held as a tenant by the\\nentirety. In re Hunter, 970 F.2d 299, 303 (7th Cir. 1992); Napotnik\\n\\f8 No. 18-2726\\n\\nv. Equibank & Parkvale Savings Association, 679 F.2d 316 (3d Cir.\\n1982). All property in the estate is liquidated by the bankruptcy\\ntrustee and the proceeds are distributed to creditors based on\\ntheir priority. 11 U.S.C. § 704. But the Bankruptcy Code allows\\ndebtors to exempt certain estate property. Exempt property is\\nremoved from the estate and retained by the debtor.\\nSection 522(b)(3)(B) exempts:\\n [a]ny interest in property in which the debtor\\n had, immediately before the commencement of\\n the case, an interest as a tenant by the entirety or\\n joint tenant to the extent that such interest as a\\n tenant by the entirety or joint tenant is exempt\\n from process under applicable nonbankruptcy\\n law.\\nThe law of co-tenancies is almost exclusively a matter of state\\nlaw since there is no general federal property law, therefore,\\nthe “applicable nonbankruptcy law” is Illinois law. The\\nquestion here is to what extent § 522(b)(3)(B) exempts Jaffe’s\\ncontingent future interest in the tenancy property. There is no\\ndispute that a lien that attached to Jaffe’s tenancy interest would\\nbe exempt. However, the nub of this case lies in the exemption\\nof the lesser interests that are not exempted under Illinois law.\\n The district court interpreted § 522(b)(3)(B) to exempt\\nJaffe’s contingent future interest in the entireties property,\\ndespite the fact that Illinois provides no exemption for these\\ninterests. In reaching this conclusion the district court parti-\\ntioned the statutory language into four elements:\\n § 522(b)(3)(B) exempts: (i) any interest in prop-\\n erty; (ii) in which the debtor had an interest as a\\n\\fNo. 18-2726 9\\n\\n tenant in the entirety; (iii) at the time the bank-\\n ruptcy petition was filed; (iv) to the extent that\\n state law exempts an interest as tenant in the\\n entirety from legal process.\\nJaffe v. Williams, No. 1:17-cv-4662, slip op. at *4 (N.D. Ill.\\nMay 22, 2018). The district court noted that Jaffe had an interest\\nas a tenant by the entirety (as well as contingent future\\ninterests) at the time the bankruptcy petition was filed (satisfy-\\ning the first three elements). The district court then concluded\\nthat any interest he held (contingent future interests included)\\nwas exempt to the extent that the tenancy interest was exempt\\nunder Illinois law. And since Illinois exempts the tenancy\\ninterest, more specifically the forced sale of the tenancy\\nproperty to collect a debt against just one tenant, all other\\ninterests Jaffe had as a tenancy by the entirety were exempt\\ncompletely.\\n But the fourth element of the district court’s analysis left\\nout a key word—“such.” Section 522(b)(3)(B) exempts certain\\ninterests “to the extent that such interest as a tenant by the\\nentirety” is exempt under state law. By not giving sufficient\\nweight to the word “such,” the district court interpreted the\\nstatute to mean that any property interest is exempt to the\\nextent that the entirety interest is exempt. But identifying what\\n“such” refers to is the main interpretive issue in this case. If\\n“such” refers just to “any interest,” as Jaffe argues, the district\\ncourt’s conclusion is correct because the statute would exempt\\n“any interest” the debtor had to the extent that any tenancy\\ninterest is exempt from state law. However, if “such interest”\\nrefers to something more limited, like the precise interests the\\n\\f10 No. 18-2726\\n\\ndebtor was seeking to exempt, the district court’s interpreta-\\ntion is incorrect.\\n Section 522(b)(3)(B) begins broadly by stating it exempts\\n“any interest in property.” The provision goes on to state that\\nthe debtor must have an interest in the property “as a tenant by\\nthe entirety” in order to claim an exemption, thus cabining “any\\ninterest in property.” This means that if, for example, a tenant\\nby the entirety transferred her interest in the income the\\nproperty generated, the transferee could not claim an exemp-\\ntion under § 522(b)(3)(B) since she does not hold the interest as\\na tenant by the entirety. The provision goes on to state that the\\nexemption applies “to the extent that such interests as a tenant\\nby the entirety,” meaning the precise interests that the debtor\\nholds as a tenant by the entirety, are exempt under state law.\\n We read this provision to establish two things. First, the\\nopening language indicates the interests that may qualify for\\nexemptions—any interest the debtor has, so long as she holds\\nthat interest as a tenant by the entirety. The provision then\\ndefines which of those qualifying interests are exempt—all of\\nthe debtor’s qualifying interests to the extent that they are\\nexempt under applicable nonbankruptcy law. Our reading of\\nthe statute yields a simple result—interests a debtor holds as\\na tenant by the entirety are exempt to the extent that those\\ninterests the debtor holds as a tenant by the entirety are exempt\\nunder state law.\\n The statutory language does not support the argument that\\n“such interest as a tenant by the entirety” is referring more\\nbroadly to “any interest in property” as Jaffe argues. It is much\\nmore sensible to read “such interest” as referring to the\\n\\fNo. 18-2726 11\\n\\ncomplete introductory phrase, which identifies the debtor’s\\nspecific interests that potentially qualify for an exemption.\\nAdditionally, the signifier (“such interest”) and referent\\n(“interest as a tenant by the entirety”) use mirroring language\\nindicating that the latter is referring to the former: “property in\\nwhich the debtor had … an interest as a tenant by the entirety …\\nto the extent that such interest as a tenant by the entirety” is\\nexempt. This buttresses the conclusion that “such interest” was\\nmeant to refer to the specific interests that the debtor held as a\\ntenant by the entirety, rather than only referring to “any\\ninterest.”\\n Given the variety of rights, interests, and exemptions in\\ntenancy by the entirety, it is likely that Congress enacted\\n§ 522(b)(3)(B) to reflect the full spectrum of different ap-\\nproaches states have taken. See Chinosorn, 243 B.R. at 700 (“the\\napparent intent of the provision is to provide, in bankruptcy,\\na level of protection from claims of creditors identical to the\\nprotection that owners of entireties property would have in\\ncollection proceedings outside of bankruptcy, under applicable\\nstate law.”). “Any interest in property in which the debtor\\nhad … an interest” is broad, inclusive language that signals\\nthat all state exemptions for tenants by the entirety will be\\nhonored in federal bankruptcy court. But the district court’s\\nreading would mean that no matter how nuanced state\\nexemptions for tenants by the entirety are, all interests would\\nbe exempt if the state exempts the entirety interest. This means\\nthat if Illinois decided to explicitly exempt the contingent\\nfuture interests that Williams’s lien attached to, such an\\nexemption would be given no effect by a bankruptcy statute\\n\\f12 No. 18-2726\\n\\nthat relies on state law. This interpretation leads to an absurd\\nresult and could not be what Congress intended.\\n Additionally, our reading of the statute is in line with each\\nof our sister circuits that have considered the issue. While it\\ndoes not appear that those cases involved arguments by the\\nparties that required similar exegesis of the statutory text, the\\nfact that the no party argued otherwise implies that the statute\\nis naturally read as we read it today. See e.g., In re Arango, 992\\nF.2d 611, 613 (6th Cir. 1993) (“[W]e must first look to Tennessee\\nlaw to classify Arango’s interests in entireties property. We\\nthen determine which of those interest is exempt from his\\nbankruptcy estate by determining whether each particular\\ninterest is subject to execution under Tennessee law” (emphasis\\nadded)); Ragsdale v. Genesco, Inc., 674 F.2d 277, 239 (4th Cir.\\n1982) (“The phrase ‘to the extent such interest … is exempt\\nfrom process under applicable nonbankruptcy law’ is of\\ndecisive importance. If the Ragsdales’ residential real property\\ncould be reached to satisfy a state court judgment in Virginia,\\nit could not be successfully claimed as exempt”); Napotnik v.\\nEquibank & Parkvale Sav. Ass’n, 679 F.2d 316 , 322–23 (3d Cir.\\n1982) (“Since the debtor’s interest in the real property owned\\nwith his wife as tenants by the entirety is not exempt from\\nprocess in Pennsylvania because they are joint obligors, he is\\nnot entitled to exempt that portion of his equity subject to\\nEquibank’s judicial lien, and cannot avoid that lien under\\nSection 522(f)”).\\n Here, Williams obtained a judgment lien on Jaffe’s contin-\\ngent future interest that existed when Jaffe filed his bankruptcy\\npetition. The first determination that must be made is whether\\nJaffe’s interest is the kind that potentially qualifies for an\\n\\fNo. 18-2726 13\\n\\nexemption under § 522(b)(3)(B). Any interest can qualify so\\nlong as it is an interest one holds “as a tenant by the entirety.”\\nJaffe held his interest as a tenant by the entirety so we must\\ndetermine whether the interest is exempt. This requires looking\\nto Illinois law to determine whether contingent future interests\\nare exempt from process.\\n The main protection that Illinois law provides tenants by\\nthe entirety is that a creditor is unable to force the sale of the\\nproperty to collect a debt against only one of the tenants. 735\\nILCS 5/12-112 (2014). Illinois law does not make all interests\\nheld by tenants by the entirety immune from process and we\\nneed not look hard for a state that does—Indiana law exempts\\n“any interest the judgment has in real estate as a tenant by the\\nentireties.” Ind. Code § 34-2-28-1(a)(5); In re Paeplow, 972 F.2d\\n730, 737 (7th Cir. 1992). Illinois law explicitly refuses to exempt\\nincome from entirety properties and fails to provide an\\nexemption for the contingent future interests. 765 ILCS 1005/1c;\\nsee also Yotis, 518 B.R. at 489–90 (holding that “any future\\ninterest that may be held by either tenant alone, such as the\\ncontingent future interest, is not exempt at all”). Accordingly,\\nwe find that Jaffe is not entitled to an exemption of his contin-\\ngent future interest. The district court’s conclusion otherwise\\nwas erroneous.\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n Because the statute exempts an individual’s tenancy\\ninterest to the extent that state law exempts that interest, we\\nreverse the decision of the district court and remand for further\\nproceedings consistent with this opinion.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4422825/\", \"author_raw\": \"William Joseph Bauer\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"BAUER"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"HAMILTON"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"BRENNAN"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645572/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":8,"string":"8"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: In RE: Scott N. JAFFE, Debtor-Appellee, Appeal Of: Laverne Williams.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-08-05\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\nNo. 18-2726\n\nIN RE: SCOTT N. JAFFE,\n Debtor-Appellee,\nAPPEAL OF: LAVERNE WILLIAMS.\n\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\n No. 17 C 04662 — John J. Tharp, Jr., Judge.\n\n\n\n ARGUED FEBRUARY 7, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 5, 2019\n\n\n Before BAUER, HAMILTON, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\n BAUER, Circuit Judge. Section 522(b)(1) of the United States\nBankruptcy Code states that a “debtor may exempt from\nproperty of the [bankruptcy] estate the property listed in either\nparagraph (2) or, in the alternative paragraph (3).” At issue in\nthis case is paragraph (3) subsection (B), which states, in full,\nthat:\n Property listed in this paragraph is any interest\n in property which the debtor had, immediately\n before the commencement of the case, an inter-\n est as a tenant by the entirety or joint tenant to\n\f2 No. 18-2726\n\n the extent that such interest as a tenant by the\n entirety or joint tenant is exempt from process\n under applicable nonbankruptcy law.\n11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(3)(B). We must determine to what extent\ncontingent future interests created by Illinois law are exempt\nunder this section. The most natural reading of the statute\nexempts any interest held by an individual as a tenant by the\nentirety to the extent that state law exempts that particular\ninterest. The district court found that any interest held by the\ndebtor is exempt to the extent that state law exempted the\nentirety interest. We reverse the district court and hold that the\ndebtor’s property cannot be excluded from the bankruptcy\nestate.\n I. BACKGROUND\n In 1998, Laverne Williams wanted to file a medical malprac-\ntice lawsuit and hired Scott Jaffe to be her attorney. The statute\nof limitations expired before Jaffe filed a complaint and\nWilliams sued for legal malpractice, obtained a default\njudgment, and recorded that judgment on a property that Jaffe\nand his wife owned as tenants by the entirety. Williams now\nclaims post-judgment interest brings her total claim against\nJaffe to $1.04 million.\n Jaffe filed a chapter 7 bankruptcy petition in November\n2015, which identified his debt to Williams and indicated it\nwas secured by a judgment lien on his residence. On the\npetition date Jaffe and his wife owned the property as tenants\nby the entirety, but before bankruptcy proceedings were\ncomplete Jaffe’s wife died. According to Illinois law, when his\nwife died the tenancy by the entirety terminated and Jaffe held\n\fNo. 18-2726 3\n\nthe property individually in fee simple. To avoid the judgment\nlien Jaffe filed a motion in the bankruptcy court arguing the\nproperty was exempt under 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(3)(B). Williams\nresponded that the property was not exempt because the\nfederal bankruptcy provision that Jaffe relied upon looks to\nstate law to determine whether a tenancy property is exempt.\nBecause Illinois does not exempt contingent future interests,\nWilliams argued, the federal bankruptcy statute does not allow\nJaffe to exempt the property from the bankruptcy estate. On\nappeal the parties renew these arguments.\n II. DISCUSSION\n We must first determine whether a lien exists and what\ninterests it attached to. If no lien exists the debtor cannot seek\nan exemption under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f) and our inquiry is\ncomplete. See In re Chinosorn, 243 B.R. 688, 694 (Bankr. N.D. Ill.\n2000) (noting there are “three elements for lien avoidance: (1) a\nlien must have fixed on an interest of the debtor in property,\n(2) the lien must impair an exemption to which the debtor\nwould have been entitled under § 522(b), and (3) the lien must\nbe a judicial lien—with the debtor bearing the burden of each\nelement.”). If a lien attached we must also determine to what\ninterests it attached. Jaffe argues that, if any lien exists, it\nattached only to his tenancy interest which is exempt under\nIllinois law. Williams asserts her lien attached to Jaffe’s\ncontingent future interest in the property. If we determine a\nlien attached to a property interest we must then determine\nwhether that interest is exempt under § 522(b)(3)(B). We will\naddress each issue in turn.\n\f4 No. 18-2726\n\n A. The Existence of a Lien\n If a judicial lien attaches to property that is entitled to\nexemption from the bankruptcy estate, § 522(f) allows the\ndebtor to avoid the fixing of the lien. See 11 U.S.C. § 522(f).\nIllinois courts have not decided whether a judgment lien\nattaches to the individual interests (in particular contingent\nfuture interests) of a tenant by the entirety. Where a state’s\nhighest court has not ruled on an issue, we must apply the law\nin a manner we believe the state supreme court would, if\npresented with the issue. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Statewide\nIns. Co., 352 F.3d 1098, 1100 (7th Cir. 2003).\n To answer this question we turn to the applicable Illinois\nstatutes, which have long controlled the attachment of judg-\nment liens. Lehman v. Cottrell, 19 N.E.2d 111, 114 (2d Dist. 1939)\n(“At common law, land was subject neither to execution nor to\nthe lien of a judgment. Both these results are purely statu-\ntory.”). Section 12–101 of the Illinois code creates judgment\nliens and controls their ability to attach to certain property\ninterests. The statute dictates that judgment liens may attach to\nall “real estate” and defines “real estate” broadly to include all\n“lands, tenements, hereditaments, and all legal and equitable\nrights therein.” 735 ILCS 5/12–105.\n The Illinois legislature enumerated the precise interests\ntenants by the entirety enjoy individually, including the\nfollowing contingent future interests: “(a) an interest as a\ntenant in common in the event of a divorce, (b) an interest as a\njoint tenant in the event that another homestead is established,\nand (c) a survivorship interest in the entire property in the\nevent of the other tenant’s death.” 765 ILCS 1005/1c. These\n\fNo. 18-2726 5\n\ncontingent future interests fall within the statute’s broad\ndefinition of “real estate.” Therefore, a judgment lien attaches\nto these individual interests, absent some exception. See In re\nTolson, 338 B.R. 359, 369 (C.D. Ill. 2005). The only exception that\n12-101 identifies is section 12-901—the homestead exception.\nSee 735 ILCS 5/12-901 (the “homestead and all rights in and\ntitle to that homestead is exempt from attachment, judgment,\nlevy or judgment sale for the payment of his or her debts or\nother purposes … .”).\n Otherwise, “where the Illinois legislature has determined\nthat a judgment lien should not be created as to a debtor’s\ninterest in particular property, it has provided that\nthe property is ‘exempt from judgment,’ see 735 ILCS 5/12-1001\n(specified personal property), or that it is not ‘subject to any\nlien,’ see 820 ILCS 305/21 (workers’ compensation award).”\nChinosorn, 243 B.R. at 695–95. But Illinois does not “exempt\nfrom judgment” interests held in tenancy by the entirety or\ncontingent future interests held by tenants by the entirety.\nIllinois law merely exempts the tenancy interest from the\nattachment of a judgment lien. 735 ILCS 5/12-112. Section 12-\n112 provides that judgment liens may attach to all “lands,\ntenements, goods and chattels.” It then carves out a narrow\nexception, the tenancy interest, without mentioning the\ncontingent future interests explicitly created by the Illinois\nlegislature.\n It is clear that if the Illinois legislature wanted to exempt\nparticular interests from the attachment of judgment liens, it\nhad no problem in doing so. Because the Illinois legislature\nfailed to do so, we find that Williams’s judgment lien attached\nto Jaffe’s contingent future interest in the property. See Yotis,\n\f6 No. 18-2726\n\n518 B.R. at 486–90; Tolson, 338 B.R. at 367 (holding that “the\ncontingent right of survivorship of each entireties tenant is a\npresent property right to which a judgment lien extends.”).\n B. Exemption Under § 522(b)(3)(B)\n Tenancy by the entirety is a form of property ownership\nthat arose out of common law and developed as part of the\nEnglish feudal system. Oval A. Phipps, Tenancy by the Entire-\nties, 25 Temp. L.Q. 24 (1951). Until the nineteenth century,\nmarried women in the United States were subject to coverture.\nThis meant a wife’s legal identity and property were absorbed\nby her husband and he was granted legal dominion over\neverything. Id. Therefore, if a married couple purchased\nproperty, it could not be owned by the husband and wife\nbecause both spouses were considered a single legal entity (the\nhusband). Id. Tenancy by the entirety was created so spouses\ncould own property jointly and upon the death of one spouse\nthe property would belong to the surviving spouse. Then,\n“during the middle and latter part of the nineteenth century,\nas part of a reform movement aimed at emancipating married\nwomen from their state of social and economic dependency,\nthe Married Women’s Property Acts were enacted practically\nuniversally by the legislatures of the several states.” Id.\n Following the passage of the Married Women’s Property\nActs, states splintered in their approach to tenancy by the\nentirety. Many state courts thought the acts destroyed tenancy\nby the entirety and a few courts held they were unaffected;\nseveral state courts gave both spouses the rights of the hus-\nband under common law and a large number of states found\nboth spouses had only the limited interests a wife previously\n\fNo. 18-2726 7\n\nhad under common law. Chinosorn, 243 B.R. at 692–93 (collect-\ning cases). States also divided over whether tenancy by the\nentirety encompassed real property and personal property, or\njust real property. Id. at 693. The Illinois judiciary found that\nthe state’s Married Women’s Act abolished tenancy by the\nentirety but, in 1990, the legislature codified tenancy by the\nentirety for real estate owned by spouses who were using the\nproperty as their homestead. 765 ILCS 1005/1c.\n Jurisdictions that recognize tenancy by the entirety,\nhowever, are not uniform in their approach to creditors’ rights\nagainst the estate:\n A creditor’s right to levy on a married person’s\n property is complex, and varies by state and the\n type of debt and property. Every state allows\n satisfaction of a debt which has been jointly\n incurred by a husband and wife against jointly\n held property, even if that property is held in a\n tenancy by the entirety … . Some states allow\n the satisfaction of an individual spouse’s debt\n against entireties property, but most do not.\nCreditors’ Rights Against Entireties Property In and Out of\nBankruptcy, 1983 Ann. Surv. of Bankr. Law Part II (September\n1983). With this kaleidoscopic background in mind, we turn\nto the bankruptcy aspect of this case.\n A debtor’s bankruptcy estate must include “all legal or\nequitable interests of the debtor in property as of the com-\nmencement of the case.” 11 U.S.C. § 541(a). This includes an\nindividual debtor’s interest in property held as a tenant by the\nentirety. In re Hunter, 970 F.2d 299, 303 (7th Cir. 1992); Napotnik\n\f8 No. 18-2726\n\nv. Equibank & Parkvale Savings Association, 679 F.2d 316 (3d Cir.\n1982). All property in the estate is liquidated by the bankruptcy\ntrustee and the proceeds are distributed to creditors based on\ntheir priority. 11 U.S.C. § 704. But the Bankruptcy Code allows\ndebtors to exempt certain estate property. Exempt property is\nremoved from the estate and retained by the debtor.\nSection 522(b)(3)(B) exempts:\n [a]ny interest in property in which the debtor\n had, immediately before the commencement of\n the case, an interest as a tenant by the entirety or\n joint tenant to the extent that such interest as a\n tenant by the entirety or joint tenant is exempt\n from process under applicable nonbankruptcy\n law.\nThe law of co-tenancies is almost exclusively a matter of state\nlaw since there is no general federal property law, therefore,\nthe “applicable nonbankruptcy law” is Illinois law. The\nquestion here is to what extent § 522(b)(3)(B) exempts Jaffe’s\ncontingent future interest in the tenancy property. There is no\ndispute that a lien that attached to Jaffe’s tenancy interest would\nbe exempt. However, the nub of this case lies in the exemption\nof the lesser interests that are not exempted under Illinois law.\n The district court interpreted § 522(b)(3)(B) to exempt\nJaffe’s contingent future interest in the entireties property,\ndespite the fact that Illinois provides no exemption for these\ninterests. In reaching this conclusion the district court parti-\ntioned the statutory language into four elements:\n § 522(b)(3)(B) exempts: (i) any interest in prop-\n erty; (ii) in which the debtor had an interest as a\n\fNo. 18-2726 9\n\n tenant in the entirety; (iii) at the time the bank-\n ruptcy petition was filed; (iv) to the extent that\n state law exempts an interest as tenant in the\n entirety from legal process.\nJaffe v. Williams, No. 1:17-cv-4662, slip op. at *4 (N.D. Ill.\nMay 22, 2018). The district court noted that Jaffe had an interest\nas a tenant by the entirety (as well as contingent future\ninterests) at the time the bankruptcy petition was filed (satisfy-\ning the first three elements). The district court then concluded\nthat any interest he held (contingent future interests included)\nwas exempt to the extent that the tenancy interest was exempt\nunder Illinois law. And since Illinois exempts the tenancy\ninterest, more specifically the forced sale of the tenancy\nproperty to collect a debt against just one tenant, all other\ninterests Jaffe had as a tenancy by the entirety were exempt\ncompletely.\n But the fourth element of the district court’s analysis left\nout a key word—“such.” Section 522(b)(3)(B) exempts certain\ninterests “to the extent that such interest as a tenant by the\nentirety” is exempt under state law. By not giving sufficient\nweight to the word “such,” the district court interpreted the\nstatute to mean that any property interest is exempt to the\nextent that the entirety interest is exempt. But identifying what\n“such” refers to is the main interpretive issue in this case. If\n“such” refers just to “any interest,” as Jaffe argues, the district\ncourt’s conclusion is correct because the statute would exempt\n“any interest” the debtor had to the extent that any tenancy\ninterest is exempt from state law. However, if “such interest”\nrefers to something more limited, like the precise interests the\n\f10 No. 18-2726\n\ndebtor was seeking to exempt, the district court’s interpreta-\ntion is incorrect.\n Section 522(b)(3)(B) begins broadly by stating it exempts\n“any interest in property.” The provision goes on to state that\nthe debtor must have an interest in the property “as a tenant by\nthe entirety” in order to claim an exemption, thus cabining “any\ninterest in property.” This means that if, for example, a tenant\nby the entirety transferred her interest in the income the\nproperty generated, the transferee could not claim an exemp-\ntion under § 522(b)(3)(B) since she does not hold the interest as\na tenant by the entirety. The provision goes on to state that the\nexemption applies “to the extent that such interests as a tenant\nby the entirety,” meaning the precise interests that the debtor\nholds as a tenant by the entirety, are exempt under state law.\n We read this provision to establish two things. First, the\nopening language indicates the interests that may qualify for\nexemptions—any interest the debtor has, so long as she holds\nthat interest as a tenant by the entirety. The provision then\ndefines which of those qualifying interests are exempt—all of\nthe debtor’s qualifying interests to the extent that they are\nexempt under applicable nonbankruptcy law. Our reading of\nthe statute yields a simple result—interests a debtor holds as\na tenant by the entirety are exempt to the extent that those\ninterests the debtor holds as a tenant by the entirety are exempt\nunder state law.\n The statutory language does not support the argument that\n“such interest as a tenant by the entirety” is referring more\nbroadly to “any interest in property” as Jaffe argues. It is much\nmore sensible to read “such interest” as referring to the\n\fNo. 18-2726 11\n\ncomplete introductory phrase, which identifies the debtor’s\nspecific interests that potentially qualify for an exemption.\nAdditionally, the signifier (“such interest”) and referent\n(“interest as a tenant by the entirety”) use mirroring language\nindicating that the latter is referring to the former: “property in\nwhich the debtor had … an interest as a tenant by the entirety …\nto the extent that such interest as a tenant by the entirety” is\nexempt. This buttresses the conclusion that “such interest” was\nmeant to refer to the specific interests that the debtor held as a\ntenant by the entirety, rather than only referring to “any\ninterest.”\n Given the variety of rights, interests, and exemptions in\ntenancy by the entirety, it is likely that Congress enacted\n§ 522(b)(3)(B) to reflect the full spectrum of different ap-\nproaches states have taken. See Chinosorn, 243 B.R. at 700 (“the\napparent intent of the provision is to provide, in bankruptcy,\na level of protection from claims of creditors identical to the\nprotection that owners of entireties property would have in\ncollection proceedings outside of bankruptcy, under applicable\nstate law.”). “Any interest in property in which the debtor\nhad … an interest” is broad, inclusive language that signals\nthat all state exemptions for tenants by the entirety will be\nhonored in federal bankruptcy court. But the district court’s\nreading would mean that no matter how nuanced state\nexemptions for tenants by the entirety are, all interests would\nbe exempt if the state exempts the entirety interest. This means\nthat if Illinois decided to explicitly exempt the contingent\nfuture interests that Williams’s lien attached to, such an\nexemption would be given no effect by a bankruptcy statute\n\f12 No. 18-2726\n\nthat relies on state law. This interpretation leads to an absurd\nresult and could not be what Congress intended.\n Additionally, our reading of the statute is in line with each\nof our sister circuits that have considered the issue. While it\ndoes not appear that those cases involved arguments by the\nparties that required similar exegesis of the statutory text, the\nfact that the no party argued otherwise implies that the statute\nis naturally read as we read it today. See e.g., In re Arango, 992\nF.2d 611, 613 (6th Cir. 1993) (“[W]e must first look to Tennessee\nlaw to classify Arango’s interests in entireties property. We\nthen determine which of those interest is exempt from his\nbankruptcy estate by determining whether each particular\ninterest is subject to execution under Tennessee law” (emphasis\nadded)); Ragsdale v. Genesco, Inc., 674 F.2d 277, 239 (4th Cir.\n1982) (“The phrase ‘to the extent such interest … is exempt\nfrom process under applicable nonbankruptcy law’ is of\ndecisive importance. If the Ragsdales’ residential real property\ncould be reached to satisfy a state court judgment in Virginia,\nit could not be successfully claimed as exempt”); Napotnik v.\nEquibank & Parkvale Sav. Ass’n, 679 F.2d 316 , 322–23 (3d Cir.\n1982) (“Since the debtor’s interest in the real property owned\nwith his wife as tenants by the entirety is not exempt from\nprocess in Pennsylvania because they are joint obligors, he is\nnot entitled to exempt that portion of his equity subject to\nEquibank’s judicial lien, and cannot avoid that lien under\nSection 522(f)”).\n Here, Williams obtained a judgment lien on Jaffe’s contin-\ngent future interest that existed when Jaffe filed his bankruptcy\npetition. The first determination that must be made is whether\nJaffe’s interest is the kind that potentially qualifies for an\n\fNo. 18-2726 13\n\nexemption under § 522(b)(3)(B). Any interest can qualify so\nlong as it is an interest one holds “as a tenant by the entirety.”\nJaffe held his interest as a tenant by the entirety so we must\ndetermine whether the interest is exempt. This requires looking\nto Illinois law to determine whether contingent future interests\nare exempt from process.\n The main protection that Illinois law provides tenants by\nthe entirety is that a creditor is unable to force the sale of the\nproperty to collect a debt against only one of the tenants. 735\nILCS 5/12-112 (2014). Illinois law does not make all interests\nheld by tenants by the entirety immune from process and we\nneed not look hard for a state that does—Indiana law exempts\n“any interest the judgment has in real estate as a tenant by the\nentireties.” Ind. Code § 34-2-28-1(a)(5); In re Paeplow, 972 F.2d\n730, 737 (7th Cir. 1992). Illinois law explicitly refuses to exempt\nincome from entirety properties and fails to provide an\nexemption for the contingent future interests. 765 ILCS 1005/1c;\nsee also Yotis, 518 B.R. at 489–90 (holding that “any future\ninterest that may be held by either tenant alone, such as the\ncontingent future interest, is not exempt at all”). Accordingly,\nwe find that Jaffe is not entitled to an exemption of his contin-\ngent future interest. The district court’s conclusion otherwise\nwas erroneous.\n III. CONCLUSION\n Because the statute exempts an individual’s tenancy\ninterest to the extent that state law exempts that interest, we\nreverse the decision of the district court and remand for further\nproceedings consistent with this opinion.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: In RE: Scott N. JAFFE, Debtor-Appellee, Appeal Of: Laverne Williams.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-08-05\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\nNo. 18-2726\\n\\nIN RE: SCOTT N. JAFFE,\\n Debtor-Appellee,\\nAPPEAL OF: LAVERNE WILLIAMS.\\n\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 17 C 04662 — John J. Tharp, Jr., Judge.\\n\\n\\n\\n ARGUED FEBRUARY 7, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 5, 2019\\n\\n\\n Before BAUER, HAMILTON, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\\n BAUER, Circuit Judge. Section 522(b)(1) of the United States\\nBankruptcy Code states that a “debtor may exempt from\\nproperty of the [bankruptcy] estate the property listed in either\\nparagraph (2) or, in the alternative paragraph (3).” At issue in\\nthis case is paragraph (3) subsection (B), which states, in full,\\nthat:\\n Property listed in this paragraph is any interest\\n in property which the debtor had, immediately\\n before the commencement of the case, an inter-\\n est as a tenant by the entirety or joint tenant to\\n\\f2 No. 18-2726\\n\\n the extent that such interest as a tenant by the\\n entirety or joint tenant is exempt from process\\n under applicable nonbankruptcy law.\\n11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(3)(B). We must determine to what extent\\ncontingent future interests created by Illinois law are exempt\\nunder this section. The most natural reading of the statute\\nexempts any interest held by an individual as a tenant by the\\nentirety to the extent that state law exempts that particular\\ninterest. The district court found that any interest held by the\\ndebtor is exempt to the extent that state law exempted the\\nentirety interest. We reverse the district court and hold that the\\ndebtor’s property cannot be excluded from the bankruptcy\\nestate.\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n In 1998, Laverne Williams wanted to file a medical malprac-\\ntice lawsuit and hired Scott Jaffe to be her attorney. The statute\\nof limitations expired before Jaffe filed a complaint and\\nWilliams sued for legal malpractice, obtained a default\\njudgment, and recorded that judgment on a property that Jaffe\\nand his wife owned as tenants by the entirety. Williams now\\nclaims post-judgment interest brings her total claim against\\nJaffe to $1.04 million.\\n Jaffe filed a chapter 7 bankruptcy petition in November\\n2015, which identified his debt to Williams and indicated it\\nwas secured by a judgment lien on his residence. On the\\npetition date Jaffe and his wife owned the property as tenants\\nby the entirety, but before bankruptcy proceedings were\\ncomplete Jaffe’s wife died. According to Illinois law, when his\\nwife died the tenancy by the entirety terminated and Jaffe held\\n\\fNo. 18-2726 3\\n\\nthe property individually in fee simple. To avoid the judgment\\nlien Jaffe filed a motion in the bankruptcy court arguing the\\nproperty was exempt under 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(3)(B). Williams\\nresponded that the property was not exempt because the\\nfederal bankruptcy provision that Jaffe relied upon looks to\\nstate law to determine whether a tenancy property is exempt.\\nBecause Illinois does not exempt contingent future interests,\\nWilliams argued, the federal bankruptcy statute does not allow\\nJaffe to exempt the property from the bankruptcy estate. On\\nappeal the parties renew these arguments.\\n II. DISCUSSION\\n We must first determine whether a lien exists and what\\ninterests it attached to. If no lien exists the debtor cannot seek\\nan exemption under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f) and our inquiry is\\ncomplete. See In re Chinosorn, 243 B.R. 688, 694 (Bankr. N.D. Ill.\\n2000) (noting there are “three elements for lien avoidance: (1) a\\nlien must have fixed on an interest of the debtor in property,\\n(2) the lien must impair an exemption to which the debtor\\nwould have been entitled under § 522(b), and (3) the lien must\\nbe a judicial lien—with the debtor bearing the burden of each\\nelement.”). If a lien attached we must also determine to what\\ninterests it attached. Jaffe argues that, if any lien exists, it\\nattached only to his tenancy interest which is exempt under\\nIllinois law. Williams asserts her lien attached to Jaffe’s\\ncontingent future interest in the property. If we determine a\\nlien attached to a property interest we must then determine\\nwhether that interest is exempt under § 522(b)(3)(B). We will\\naddress each issue in turn.\\n\\f4 No. 18-2726\\n\\n A. The Existence of a Lien\\n If a judicial lien attaches to property that is entitled to\\nexemption from the bankruptcy estate, § 522(f) allows the\\ndebtor to avoid the fixing of the lien. See 11 U.S.C. § 522(f).\\nIllinois courts have not decided whether a judgment lien\\nattaches to the individual interests (in particular contingent\\nfuture interests) of a tenant by the entirety. Where a state’s\\nhighest court has not ruled on an issue, we must apply the law\\nin a manner we believe the state supreme court would, if\\npresented with the issue. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Statewide\\nIns. Co., 352 F.3d 1098, 1100 (7th Cir. 2003).\\n To answer this question we turn to the applicable Illinois\\nstatutes, which have long controlled the attachment of judg-\\nment liens. Lehman v. Cottrell, 19 N.E.2d 111, 114 (2d Dist. 1939)\\n(“At common law, land was subject neither to execution nor to\\nthe lien of a judgment. Both these results are purely statu-\\ntory.”). Section 12–101 of the Illinois code creates judgment\\nliens and controls their ability to attach to certain property\\ninterests. The statute dictates that judgment liens may attach to\\nall “real estate” and defines “real estate” broadly to include all\\n“lands, tenements, hereditaments, and all legal and equitable\\nrights therein.” 735 ILCS 5/12–105.\\n The Illinois legislature enumerated the precise interests\\ntenants by the entirety enjoy individually, including the\\nfollowing contingent future interests: “(a) an interest as a\\ntenant in common in the event of a divorce, (b) an interest as a\\njoint tenant in the event that another homestead is established,\\nand (c) a survivorship interest in the entire property in the\\nevent of the other tenant’s death.” 765 ILCS 1005/1c. These\\n\\fNo. 18-2726 5\\n\\ncontingent future interests fall within the statute’s broad\\ndefinition of “real estate.” Therefore, a judgment lien attaches\\nto these individual interests, absent some exception. See In re\\nTolson, 338 B.R. 359, 369 (C.D. Ill. 2005). The only exception that\\n12-101 identifies is section 12-901—the homestead exception.\\nSee 735 ILCS 5/12-901 (the “homestead and all rights in and\\ntitle to that homestead is exempt from attachment, judgment,\\nlevy or judgment sale for the payment of his or her debts or\\nother purposes … .”).\\n Otherwise, “where the Illinois legislature has determined\\nthat a judgment lien should not be created as to a debtor’s\\ninterest in particular property, it has provided that\\nthe property is ‘exempt from judgment,’ see 735 ILCS 5/12-1001\\n(specified personal property), or that it is not ‘subject to any\\nlien,’ see 820 ILCS 305/21 (workers’ compensation award).”\\nChinosorn, 243 B.R. at 695–95. But Illinois does not “exempt\\nfrom judgment” interests held in tenancy by the entirety or\\ncontingent future interests held by tenants by the entirety.\\nIllinois law merely exempts the tenancy interest from the\\nattachment of a judgment lien. 735 ILCS 5/12-112. Section 12-\\n112 provides that judgment liens may attach to all “lands,\\ntenements, goods and chattels.” It then carves out a narrow\\nexception, the tenancy interest, without mentioning the\\ncontingent future interests explicitly created by the Illinois\\nlegislature.\\n It is clear that if the Illinois legislature wanted to exempt\\nparticular interests from the attachment of judgment liens, it\\nhad no problem in doing so. Because the Illinois legislature\\nfailed to do so, we find that Williams’s judgment lien attached\\nto Jaffe’s contingent future interest in the property. See Yotis,\\n\\f6 No. 18-2726\\n\\n518 B.R. at 486–90; Tolson, 338 B.R. at 367 (holding that “the\\ncontingent right of survivorship of each entireties tenant is a\\npresent property right to which a judgment lien extends.”).\\n B. Exemption Under § 522(b)(3)(B)\\n Tenancy by the entirety is a form of property ownership\\nthat arose out of common law and developed as part of the\\nEnglish feudal system. Oval A. Phipps, Tenancy by the Entire-\\nties, 25 Temp. L.Q. 24 (1951). Until the nineteenth century,\\nmarried women in the United States were subject to coverture.\\nThis meant a wife’s legal identity and property were absorbed\\nby her husband and he was granted legal dominion over\\neverything. Id. Therefore, if a married couple purchased\\nproperty, it could not be owned by the husband and wife\\nbecause both spouses were considered a single legal entity (the\\nhusband). Id. Tenancy by the entirety was created so spouses\\ncould own property jointly and upon the death of one spouse\\nthe property would belong to the surviving spouse. Then,\\n“during the middle and latter part of the nineteenth century,\\nas part of a reform movement aimed at emancipating married\\nwomen from their state of social and economic dependency,\\nthe Married Women’s Property Acts were enacted practically\\nuniversally by the legislatures of the several states.” Id.\\n Following the passage of the Married Women’s Property\\nActs, states splintered in their approach to tenancy by the\\nentirety. Many state courts thought the acts destroyed tenancy\\nby the entirety and a few courts held they were unaffected;\\nseveral state courts gave both spouses the rights of the hus-\\nband under common law and a large number of states found\\nboth spouses had only the limited interests a wife previously\\n\\fNo. 18-2726 7\\n\\nhad under common law. Chinosorn, 243 B.R. at 692–93 (collect-\\ning cases). States also divided over whether tenancy by the\\nentirety encompassed real property and personal property, or\\njust real property. Id. at 693. The Illinois judiciary found that\\nthe state’s Married Women’s Act abolished tenancy by the\\nentirety but, in 1990, the legislature codified tenancy by the\\nentirety for real estate owned by spouses who were using the\\nproperty as their homestead. 765 ILCS 1005/1c.\\n Jurisdictions that recognize tenancy by the entirety,\\nhowever, are not uniform in their approach to creditors’ rights\\nagainst the estate:\\n A creditor’s right to levy on a married person’s\\n property is complex, and varies by state and the\\n type of debt and property. Every state allows\\n satisfaction of a debt which has been jointly\\n incurred by a husband and wife against jointly\\n held property, even if that property is held in a\\n tenancy by the entirety … . Some states allow\\n the satisfaction of an individual spouse’s debt\\n against entireties property, but most do not.\\nCreditors’ Rights Against Entireties Property In and Out of\\nBankruptcy, 1983 Ann. Surv. of Bankr. Law Part II (September\\n1983). With this kaleidoscopic background in mind, we turn\\nto the bankruptcy aspect of this case.\\n A debtor’s bankruptcy estate must include “all legal or\\nequitable interests of the debtor in property as of the com-\\nmencement of the case.” 11 U.S.C. § 541(a). This includes an\\nindividual debtor’s interest in property held as a tenant by the\\nentirety. In re Hunter, 970 F.2d 299, 303 (7th Cir. 1992); Napotnik\\n\\f8 No. 18-2726\\n\\nv. Equibank & Parkvale Savings Association, 679 F.2d 316 (3d Cir.\\n1982). All property in the estate is liquidated by the bankruptcy\\ntrustee and the proceeds are distributed to creditors based on\\ntheir priority. 11 U.S.C. § 704. But the Bankruptcy Code allows\\ndebtors to exempt certain estate property. Exempt property is\\nremoved from the estate and retained by the debtor.\\nSection 522(b)(3)(B) exempts:\\n [a]ny interest in property in which the debtor\\n had, immediately before the commencement of\\n the case, an interest as a tenant by the entirety or\\n joint tenant to the extent that such interest as a\\n tenant by the entirety or joint tenant is exempt\\n from process under applicable nonbankruptcy\\n law.\\nThe law of co-tenancies is almost exclusively a matter of state\\nlaw since there is no general federal property law, therefore,\\nthe “applicable nonbankruptcy law” is Illinois law. The\\nquestion here is to what extent § 522(b)(3)(B) exempts Jaffe’s\\ncontingent future interest in the tenancy property. There is no\\ndispute that a lien that attached to Jaffe’s tenancy interest would\\nbe exempt. However, the nub of this case lies in the exemption\\nof the lesser interests that are not exempted under Illinois law.\\n The district court interpreted § 522(b)(3)(B) to exempt\\nJaffe’s contingent future interest in the entireties property,\\ndespite the fact that Illinois provides no exemption for these\\ninterests. In reaching this conclusion the district court parti-\\ntioned the statutory language into four elements:\\n § 522(b)(3)(B) exempts: (i) any interest in prop-\\n erty; (ii) in which the debtor had an interest as a\\n\\fNo. 18-2726 9\\n\\n tenant in the entirety; (iii) at the time the bank-\\n ruptcy petition was filed; (iv) to the extent that\\n state law exempts an interest as tenant in the\\n entirety from legal process.\\nJaffe v. Williams, No. 1:17-cv-4662, slip op. at *4 (N.D. Ill.\\nMay 22, 2018). The district court noted that Jaffe had an interest\\nas a tenant by the entirety (as well as contingent future\\ninterests) at the time the bankruptcy petition was filed (satisfy-\\ning the first three elements). The district court then concluded\\nthat any interest he held (contingent future interests included)\\nwas exempt to the extent that the tenancy interest was exempt\\nunder Illinois law. And since Illinois exempts the tenancy\\ninterest, more specifically the forced sale of the tenancy\\nproperty to collect a debt against just one tenant, all other\\ninterests Jaffe had as a tenancy by the entirety were exempt\\ncompletely.\\n But the fourth element of the district court’s analysis left\\nout a key word—“such.” Section 522(b)(3)(B) exempts certain\\ninterests “to the extent that such interest as a tenant by the\\nentirety” is exempt under state law. By not giving sufficient\\nweight to the word “such,” the district court interpreted the\\nstatute to mean that any property interest is exempt to the\\nextent that the entirety interest is exempt. But identifying what\\n“such” refers to is the main interpretive issue in this case. If\\n“such” refers just to “any interest,” as Jaffe argues, the district\\ncourt’s conclusion is correct because the statute would exempt\\n“any interest” the debtor had to the extent that any tenancy\\ninterest is exempt from state law. However, if “such interest”\\nrefers to something more limited, like the precise interests the\\n\\f10 No. 18-2726\\n\\ndebtor was seeking to exempt, the district court’s interpreta-\\ntion is incorrect.\\n Section 522(b)(3)(B) begins broadly by stating it exempts\\n“any interest in property.” The provision goes on to state that\\nthe debtor must have an interest in the property “as a tenant by\\nthe entirety” in order to claim an exemption, thus cabining “any\\ninterest in property.” This means that if, for example, a tenant\\nby the entirety transferred her interest in the income the\\nproperty generated, the transferee could not claim an exemp-\\ntion under § 522(b)(3)(B) since she does not hold the interest as\\na tenant by the entirety. The provision goes on to state that the\\nexemption applies “to the extent that such interests as a tenant\\nby the entirety,” meaning the precise interests that the debtor\\nholds as a tenant by the entirety, are exempt under state law.\\n We read this provision to establish two things. First, the\\nopening language indicates the interests that may qualify for\\nexemptions—any interest the debtor has, so long as she holds\\nthat interest as a tenant by the entirety. The provision then\\ndefines which of those qualifying interests are exempt—all of\\nthe debtor’s qualifying interests to the extent that they are\\nexempt under applicable nonbankruptcy law. Our reading of\\nthe statute yields a simple result—interests a debtor holds as\\na tenant by the entirety are exempt to the extent that those\\ninterests the debtor holds as a tenant by the entirety are exempt\\nunder state law.\\n The statutory language does not support the argument that\\n“such interest as a tenant by the entirety” is referring more\\nbroadly to “any interest in property” as Jaffe argues. It is much\\nmore sensible to read “such interest” as referring to the\\n\\fNo. 18-2726 11\\n\\ncomplete introductory phrase, which identifies the debtor’s\\nspecific interests that potentially qualify for an exemption.\\nAdditionally, the signifier (“such interest”) and referent\\n(“interest as a tenant by the entirety”) use mirroring language\\nindicating that the latter is referring to the former: “property in\\nwhich the debtor had … an interest as a tenant by the entirety …\\nto the extent that such interest as a tenant by the entirety” is\\nexempt. This buttresses the conclusion that “such interest” was\\nmeant to refer to the specific interests that the debtor held as a\\ntenant by the entirety, rather than only referring to “any\\ninterest.”\\n Given the variety of rights, interests, and exemptions in\\ntenancy by the entirety, it is likely that Congress enacted\\n§ 522(b)(3)(B) to reflect the full spectrum of different ap-\\nproaches states have taken. See Chinosorn, 243 B.R. at 700 (“the\\napparent intent of the provision is to provide, in bankruptcy,\\na level of protection from claims of creditors identical to the\\nprotection that owners of entireties property would have in\\ncollection proceedings outside of bankruptcy, under applicable\\nstate law.”). “Any interest in property in which the debtor\\nhad … an interest” is broad, inclusive language that signals\\nthat all state exemptions for tenants by the entirety will be\\nhonored in federal bankruptcy court. But the district court’s\\nreading would mean that no matter how nuanced state\\nexemptions for tenants by the entirety are, all interests would\\nbe exempt if the state exempts the entirety interest. This means\\nthat if Illinois decided to explicitly exempt the contingent\\nfuture interests that Williams’s lien attached to, such an\\nexemption would be given no effect by a bankruptcy statute\\n\\f12 No. 18-2726\\n\\nthat relies on state law. This interpretation leads to an absurd\\nresult and could not be what Congress intended.\\n Additionally, our reading of the statute is in line with each\\nof our sister circuits that have considered the issue. While it\\ndoes not appear that those cases involved arguments by the\\nparties that required similar exegesis of the statutory text, the\\nfact that the no party argued otherwise implies that the statute\\nis naturally read as we read it today. See e.g., In re Arango, 992\\nF.2d 611, 613 (6th Cir. 1993) (“[W]e must first look to Tennessee\\nlaw to classify Arango’s interests in entireties property. We\\nthen determine which of those interest is exempt from his\\nbankruptcy estate by determining whether each particular\\ninterest is subject to execution under Tennessee law” (emphasis\\nadded)); Ragsdale v. Genesco, Inc., 674 F.2d 277, 239 (4th Cir.\\n1982) (“The phrase ‘to the extent such interest … is exempt\\nfrom process under applicable nonbankruptcy law’ is of\\ndecisive importance. If the Ragsdales’ residential real property\\ncould be reached to satisfy a state court judgment in Virginia,\\nit could not be successfully claimed as exempt”); Napotnik v.\\nEquibank & Parkvale Sav. Ass’n, 679 F.2d 316 , 322–23 (3d Cir.\\n1982) (“Since the debtor’s interest in the real property owned\\nwith his wife as tenants by the entirety is not exempt from\\nprocess in Pennsylvania because they are joint obligors, he is\\nnot entitled to exempt that portion of his equity subject to\\nEquibank’s judicial lien, and cannot avoid that lien under\\nSection 522(f)”).\\n Here, Williams obtained a judgment lien on Jaffe’s contin-\\ngent future interest that existed when Jaffe filed his bankruptcy\\npetition. The first determination that must be made is whether\\nJaffe’s interest is the kind that potentially qualifies for an\\n\\fNo. 18-2726 13\\n\\nexemption under § 522(b)(3)(B). Any interest can qualify so\\nlong as it is an interest one holds “as a tenant by the entirety.”\\nJaffe held his interest as a tenant by the entirety so we must\\ndetermine whether the interest is exempt. This requires looking\\nto Illinois law to determine whether contingent future interests\\nare exempt from process.\\n The main protection that Illinois law provides tenants by\\nthe entirety is that a creditor is unable to force the sale of the\\nproperty to collect a debt against only one of the tenants. 735\\nILCS 5/12-112 (2014). Illinois law does not make all interests\\nheld by tenants by the entirety immune from process and we\\nneed not look hard for a state that does—Indiana law exempts\\n“any interest the judgment has in real estate as a tenant by the\\nentireties.” Ind. Code § 34-2-28-1(a)(5); In re Paeplow, 972 F.2d\\n730, 737 (7th Cir. 1992). Illinois law explicitly refuses to exempt\\nincome from entirety properties and fails to provide an\\nexemption for the contingent future interests. 765 ILCS 1005/1c;\\nsee also Yotis, 518 B.R. at 489–90 (holding that “any future\\ninterest that may be held by either tenant alone, such as the\\ncontingent future interest, is not exempt at all”). Accordingly,\\nwe find that Jaffe is not entitled to an exemption of his contin-\\ngent future interest. The district court’s conclusion otherwise\\nwas erroneous.\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n Because the statute exempts an individual’s tenancy\\ninterest to the extent that state law exempts that interest, we\\nreverse the decision of the district court and remand for further\\nproceedings consistent with this opinion.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3783,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4645586,"string":"4,645,586"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"Michael O. CAMPOS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COOK COUNTY, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Michael Campos v. Cook County"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-08-05"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-3472"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Kanne, Sykes, Brennan\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"Michael Stephen Kanne\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-3472\\nMICHAEL O. CAMPOS,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n v.\\n\\nCOOK COUNTY, et al.,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 18-cv-2305 — Charles R. Norgle, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED MAY 29, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 5, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before KANNE, SYKES, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\\n KANNE, Circuit Judge. After Michael Campos’s August\\n2011 arrest for driving under the influence, his employer—the\\nCook County Sheriff’s Office—began termination proceed-\\nings. The Merit Board has voted to terminate Campos’s em-\\nployment on two occasions. But both times the Cook County\\nCircuit Court vacated the decision. And, to this day, the ter-\\nmination proceedings are ongoing. Instead of waiting for\\ntheir completion, Campos filed this federal law suit alleging,\\n\\f2 No. 18-3472\\n\\namong other things, that the protracted proceedings have vi-\\nolated his substantive due process rights. Because Campos\\nhas not met the high standard for stating a substantive due\\nprocess claim, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of his\\nclaims.\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n In 1997, Michael Campos began working for the Cook\\nCounty Sheriff’s Office as a correctional officer. In August\\n2011, he was arrested for driving under the influence, striking\\na vehicle, and leaving the scene of an accident. Campos self-\\nreported the incident, and the sheriff suspended him without\\npay on November 29, 2011, and referred him for termination.\\nBy law, the Cook County Sheriff’s Merit Board has exclusive\\nauthority to terminate Sheriff’s Office employees. 55 Ill.\\nComp. Stat. 5/3-7012.\\n While the Merit Board proceedings were ongoing, the\\nCook County Circuit Court granted Campos’s motion to sup-\\npress and quashed his arrest. On October 15, 2015, the Merit\\nBoard voted to terminate Campos for violating state law. He\\npetitioned the circuit court for review approximately one year\\nlater. On January 18, 2017, the circuit court granted Campos’s\\npetition, vacated the Merit Board’s decision as too vague to\\nallow for judicial review, and remanded for a second attempt.\\n In April 2017, the Merit Board once again voted to termi-\\nnate Campos. He sought judicial review. And on March 9,\\n2018, the circuit court vacated and remanded a second time.\\nBut this time, the court vacated the Merit Board’s decision not\\nbecause of some defect in the reasoning but because of a de-\\nfect in the Merit Board’s composition.\\n\\fNo. 18-3472 3\\n\\n The circuit court relied upon a developing line of cases in-\\nvolving interim appointments to the Merit Board. In Taylor v.\\nDart, the Illinois Appellate Court found that the Merit Board\\nAct does not permit the sheriff to appoint Merit Board mem-\\nbers to terms of fewer than six years. 64 N.E.3d 123, 130 (Il.\\nApp. Ct. 2016) (citing 55 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/3–7002). Because\\none member of the Merit Board was serving an interim term\\nwhen the Board voted to terminate the plaintiff, the Taylor\\ncourt held that the decision was void. Id. at 132. The circuit\\ncourt found that the reasoning in Taylor applied with equal\\nforce to Campos. When the Merit Board voted to terminate\\nhim, one member was serving an interim term. 1\\n At this point, it had been almost seven years since the sher-\\niff suspended Campos without pay. Rather than wait for a\\nthird Merit Board decision, he filed suit in federal court. Cam-\\npos’s initial complaint—filed on March 29, 2018—named\\neighteen defendants and advanced five claims. Besides suing\\nCook County, the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office, the\\nsheriff, the Merit Board, and the Board’s members, he also\\nsued the law firm Steptoe and Johnson, LLP, and three of its\\nattorneys (who represented the county in the circuit court\\nproceedings). On May 2, 2018, the Steptoe defendants filed a\\nmotion to dismiss the claims against them. The district court\\nscheduled a hearing on the motion for May 11, 2018.\\n On May 10, Campos filed an amended complaint in which\\nhe renewed his claims against all defendants (except the Cook\\n\\n\\n 1 After Taylor, the Illinois General Assembly amended the Merit Board\\n\\nAct to allow the sheriff to make interim appointments. 55 Ill. Comp. Stat.\\n5/3-7002 (as amended effective Dec. 8, 2017). The sheriff has now reconsti-\\ntuted the Board, correcting the problem identified in Taylor.\\n\\f4 No. 18-3472\\n\\nCounty State’s Attorney’s Office) and added a sixth claim (for\\nFirst Amendment retaliation). The district court held the al-\\nready-scheduled hearing the next day. When plaintiff’s coun-\\nsel advised the court that he had filed an amended complaint\\nthe day before, the court noted that it had not granted leave\\nto file an amended complaint. The court referred to the Local\\nRules for the Northern District of Illinois and concluded that\\nthe original complaint remained the operative document. See\\nN.D. Ill. L.R. 5.3(b) (“Every motion or objection shall be ac-\\ncompanied by a notice of presentment specifying the date and\\ntime on which, and judge before whom, the motion or objec-\\ntion is to be presented.”). After that finding, the court dis-\\nmissed the Steptoe defendants with prejudice.\\n Several months later, the remaining defendants filed a mo-\\ntion to dismiss the amended complaint. On November 5, 2018,\\nthe court granted that motion and dismissed the amended\\ncomplaint with prejudice. Campos appealed.\\n II. ANALYSIS\\n We review the dismissal of a complaint for failure to state\\na claim de novo. Kanter v. Barr, 919 F.3d 437, 440 (7th Cir. 2019).\\nCampos’s amended complaint advances two substantive due\\nprocess claims, three conspiracy claims, and one First Amend-\\nment retaliation claim. Oddly, Campos does not bring a pro-\\ncedural due process claim, focusing instead on substantive\\ndue process. He does suggest that his conspiracy claims might\\nbe either substantive or procedural, but a plaintiff cannot\\nbring a § 1983 claim for conspiracy to deny a civil right unless\\nthe plaintiff states an underlying claim for denial of a right.\\nArcher v. Chisholm, 870 F.3d 603, 620 (7th Cir. 2017). Section\\n1983 conspiracy claims are derivative; they cannot stand\\nalone. In other words, because he has alleged no underlying\\n\\fNo. 18-3472 5\\n\\nprocedural due process violation, his conspiracy claims can-\\nnot be procedural in nature.\\n Accordingly, we limit our analysis to whether Campos has\\nstated substantive due process claims. For the reasons that fol-\\nlow, he has not. And, although Campos spends considerable\\ntime discussing recent decisions by the Illinois appellate\\ncourts which limit Taylor’s impact, we find this line of argu-\\nment to be a red herring. Because Campos did not state cog-\\nnizable claims, the district court properly dismissed with prej-\\nudice.\\n A. Campos Did Not State Substantive Due Process Claims\\n “[T]he scope of substantive due process is very limited.”\\nTun v. Whitticker, 398 F.3d 899, 902 (7th Cir. 2005) (citing Wash-\\nington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997)). And courts should\\nbe “reluctant to expand the concept of substantive due pro-\\ncess because guideposts for responsible decisionmaking in\\nthis unchartered area are scarce and open-ended.” Collins v.\\nCity of Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 125 (1992). Given its slip-\\npery nature, the requirements for stating a substantive due\\nprocess claim are similarly vague. A plaintiff must allege that\\nthe government violated a fundamental right or liberty.\\nGlucksberg, 521 U.S. at 720; Belcher v. Norton, 497 F.3d 742, 753\\n(7th Cir. 2007). And that violation must have been arbitrary\\nand irrational. Cty. of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 845\\n(1998); Idris v. City of Chicago, 552 F.3d 564, 566 (7th Cir. 2009).\\nSubstantive due process protects against only the most egre-\\ngious and outrageous government action. See Lewis, 523 U.S.\\nat 845; Belcher, 497 F.3d at 753 (7th Cir. 2007).\\n “[E]mployment-related rights are not fundamental.” Palka\\nv. Shelton, 623 F.3d 447, 453 (7th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, a\\n\\f6 No. 18-3472\\n\\npublic employee alleging wrongful termination cannot state a\\nsubstantive due process claim “unless the employee also al-\\nleges the defendants violated some other constitutional right\\nor that state remedies were inadequate.” Id. (citing Montgom-\\nery v. Stefaniak, 410 F.3d 933, 939 (7th Cir. 2005)). Thus, to state\\na claim, Campos must allege that the defendants deprived\\nhim of a state-created property interest by arbitrary and irra-\\ntional conduct and that the defendants either committed a\\nseparate constitutional violation or state law remedies are in-\\nadequate. Galdikas v. Fagan, 342 F.3d 684, 691 (7th Cir. 2003),\\nabrogated on other grounds by Spiegla v. Hull, 371 F.3d 928 (7th\\nCir. 2004).\\n Campos spends considerable time arguing that he pos-\\nsesses a property interest in continued employment. The de-\\nfendants do not deny he does, and we assume the same. The\\ndispositive question is whether Campos’s allegations satisfy\\nthe remaining elements.\\n To begin with, Campos hasn’t alleged an independent\\nconstitutional violation. He seems to contend that “[h]is prop-\\nerty interest was the other constitutional right.” But the exist-\\nence of a property right is a predicate to a due process claim.\\nHudson v. City of Chicago, 374 F.3d 554, 559 (7th Cir. 2004).\\nCampos’s alleged property interest in his employment satis-\\nfies one element of his due process claim, but it doesn’t con-\\nstitute an independent constitutional claim on its own.\\n On appeal, Campos makes no mention of the First Amend-\\nment retaliation claim which he alleged in his amended com-\\nplaint. Accordingly, he has waived any challenge to the dis-\\ntrict court’s dismissal of that claim. Puffer v. Allstate Ins. Co.,\\n675 F.3d 709, 718 (7th Cir. 2012). Campos does make several\\nopaque references to “stigma-plus claims” in his opening\\n\\fNo. 18-3472 7\\n\\nbrief. But he never explains what he means by that term, much\\nless cite any cases articulating the elements of the claim or\\nclearly identifying the facts which might support its applica-\\ntion here. 2 Campos has waived this underdeveloped argu-\\nment. Id. Accordingly, Campos has not identified any inde-\\npendent constitutional violations which might support his\\nsubstantive due process claim.\\n Campos also argues that the protracted state court pro-\\nceedings demonstrate the inadequacy of his state law reme-\\ndies. He cites to cases which establish that public employers\\nmust provide tenured employees with a timely and meaning-\\nful hearing before termination. See, e.g., Cleveland Bd. of Educ.\\nv. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 541 (1985); Hudson, 374 F.3d at 559.\\nBut these cases discuss the minimum procedural due process\\nrequirements for terminating public employees. Campos has\\nalleged substantive due process violations.\\n Campos’s allegations fall short. To begin with, his state\\ncourt remedies have, in fact, been effective. He’s twice con-\\nvinced the circuit court to vacate the Merit Board’s decision.\\nThe fact that the circuit court identified problems in both\\nMerit Board decisions doesn’t show that the Merit Board\\n\\n2 In his reply brief, Campos finally unveils the basis for this mysterious\\n“stigma-plus” claim. He seems to mean what we’ve referred to as an “oc-\\ncupational-liberty claim.” See Palka, 623 F.3d at 454 (“An occupational-lib-\\nerty claim may arise when, after an adverse employment action, a public\\nemployer stigmatizes the employee by making public comments impugn-\\ning his good name, honor, or reputation or imposes a stigma that fore-\\ncloses other employment opportunities.”). This is too little, too late. Parties\\nwaive arguments which they develop for the first time in a reply brief.\\nHarris v. Warrick Cty. Sheriff's Dep’t, 666 F.3d 444, 448 (7th Cir. 2012)\\n\\f8 No. 18-3472\\n\\nprocedures are inadequate—it demonstrates that the review\\nprocess has worked. See Palka, 623 F.3d at 453 (holding that\\nthe Merit Board disciplinary process satisfies Cook County’s\\nprocedural due process obligation).\\n Of course, the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees Cam-\\npos an opportunity to be heard regarding his termination “at\\na meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” Logan v.\\nZimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422, 437 (1982) (quoting Arm-\\nstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965)). Eventually, justice\\ndelayed is justice denied. See Schroeder v. City of Chicago, 927\\nF.2d 957, 960 (7th Cir. 1991) (“[A]t some point delay must\\nripen into deprivation, because otherwise a suit alleging dep-\\nrivation would be forever premature.”). And almost eight\\nyears have elapsed since the sheriff first suspended Campos.\\n But there is no bright-line rule for determining when pro-\\ntracted review proceedings run afoul of due process. See\\nMathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976) (explaining that\\ncourts identify due process requirements by carefully weigh-\\ning the relevant interests). And state law remedies fail to sat-\\nisfy due process only when they are “meaningless or nonex-\\nistent.” Michalowicz v. Vill. of Bedford Park, 528 F.3d 530, 535\\n(7th Cir. 2008) (rejecting a procedural due process claim\\nbrought by a terminated firefighter) (quoting Easter House v.\\nFelder, 910 F.2d 1387, 1406 (7th Cir. 1990)). We do not opine on\\nwhether the lengthy termination process satisfies Campos’s\\nprocedural due process rights (though we do note that federal\\nlawsuits often pend for several years, especially if remanded\\nto the district court). See Easter House, 910 F.2d at 1406\\n(“[A]lmost all litigation, whether conducted in a state or fed-\\neral forum, may be characterized as a lengthy and speculative\\n\\fNo. 18-3472 9\\n\\nprocess.”). But the eight-year process is certainly not so arbi-\\ntrary or outrageous as to violate substantive due process. 3\\n We offer no opinion regarding when delays in reaching a\\nfinal adjudication might offend procedural due process. We\\nmerely find that the convoluted proceedings here are evi-\\ndence that Campos has received repeated—and efficacious—\\nopportunities to challenge his termination. The district court\\nproperly dismissed Campos’s due process and conspiracy\\nclaims.\\n B. The District Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion By Dismiss-\\ning Campos’s Claims With Prejudice\\n Finally, Campos argues that the district court erred when\\nit dismissed his claims with prejudice. We review that deci-\\nsion for abuse of discretion. Haywood v. Massage Envy Fran-\\nchising, LLC, 887 F.3d 329, 335 (7th Cir. 2018). The court cer-\\ntainly did not err when it dismissed Campos’s amended com-\\nplaint with prejudice. For the reasons we’ve just articulated,\\n\\n 3 We note, briefly, that post-Taylor developments in Illinois law do not\\n\\naffect our analysis (despite Campos’s arguments to the contrary). In Lopez\\nv. Dart, the Illinois appellate court applied the de facto officer doctrine—\\nwhich confers validity on acts performed by a person acting under color\\nof title even if a later defect in his or her appointment comes to light—to\\nMerit Board decisions. 118 N.E.3d 580, 591, 595 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). Ac-\\ncordingly, only the first challenger may invalidate the agency decision.\\nThe Illinois court of appeals issued Lopez after the circuit court vacated the\\nsecond Merit Board decision in Campos’s case. The district court observed\\nthat this decision may have been erroneous (and the County has asked the\\ncircuit court for reconsideration). Naturally, Campos disagrees. He argues\\nthat de facto officers can still commit constitutional violations. That’s un-\\ndoubtedly true but ultimately irrelevant because he hasn’t stated a claim.\\nWe, of course, offer no opinion regarding the proper resolution of Cam-\\npos’s appeal before the circuit court.\\n\\f10 No. 18-3472\\n\\nCampos did not state claims upon which relief could be\\nbased, and a district court need not grant leave to amend if\\nthere doesn’t seem to be a plausible way to cure the defects.\\nGonzalez-Koeneke v. West, 791 F.3d 801, 808 (7th Cir. 2015).\\n We are slightly more concerned about the district court’s\\ndismissal of the Steptoe defendants (back in May 2018). That\\ndismissal came after Campos filed an amended complaint as\\nof right (as permitted by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure\\n15(a)(B)) but before defendants filed a motion to dismiss that\\nnew complaint. At the May 11, 2018, hearing, the district court\\nsuggested that the amended complaint wasn’t properly filed\\nbecause it hadn’t been “presented,” as required by the Local\\nRules. N.D. Ill. L.R. 5.3(b) (“Every motion or objection shall be\\naccompanied by a notice of presentment specifying the date\\nand time on which, and judge before whom, the motion or\\nobjection is to be presented.”).\\n Local Rule 5.3(b) applies only to motions or objections,\\nand an amended complaint filed as of right is neither. The dis-\\ntrict court thus dismissed the Steptoe defendants sua sponte\\nand without considering the facts alleged against them in the\\noperative complaint.\\n If Campos could conceivably state a claim against the\\nSteptoe attorneys, we would remand. But § 1983 plaintiffs can\\nsue private attorneys for constitutional violations only if they\\nwere “engaged in a conspiracy with state officials to deprive\\nanother of federal rights.” Tower v. Glover, 467 U.S. 914, 920\\n(1984). And given Campos’s failure to state any underlying\\nconstitutional claims, he hasn’t alleged any conspiracy be-\\ntween the Steptoe defendants and county defendants. Ac-\\ncordingly, remand would be futile. See Shockley v. Jones, 823\\nF.2d 1068, 1073 (7th Cir. 1987) (explaining that the court\\n\\fNo. 18-3472 11\\n\\nimproperly dismissed the complaint sua sponte but finding\\nthat remand would be futile because his proposed amended\\ncomplaint did not state a claim either); Baker v. Dir., U.S. Pa-\\nrole Comm’n, 916 F.2d 725, 726 (D.C. Cir. 1990).\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n The Cook County Sheriff referred Campos for termination\\nin 2011, and the proceedings are still pending to this day. But\\nthe lengthy review process demonstrates Campos’s success in\\nattacking the Merit Board’s decisions, not the inadequacy of\\nthe state remedies. The doctrine of substantive due process\\ndoes not guarantee expeditious review; it merely protects fun-\\ndamental rights from government deprivation by arbitrary\\nand outrageous conduct. He doesn’t allege any such conduct\\nhere. AFFIRMED.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4422839/\", \"author_raw\": \"Michael Stephen Kanne\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"KANNE"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"SYKES"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"BRENNAN"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645586/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":8,"string":"8"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Michael O. CAMPOS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COOK COUNTY, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-08-05\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-3472\nMICHAEL O. CAMPOS,\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\n v.\n\nCOOK COUNTY, et al.,\n Defendants-Appellees.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\n No. 18-cv-2305 — Charles R. Norgle, Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED MAY 29, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 5, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before KANNE, SYKES, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\n KANNE, Circuit Judge. After Michael Campos’s August\n2011 arrest for driving under the influence, his employer—the\nCook County Sheriff’s Office—began termination proceed-\nings. The Merit Board has voted to terminate Campos’s em-\nployment on two occasions. But both times the Cook County\nCircuit Court vacated the decision. And, to this day, the ter-\nmination proceedings are ongoing. Instead of waiting for\ntheir completion, Campos filed this federal law suit alleging,\n\f2 No. 18-3472\n\namong other things, that the protracted proceedings have vi-\nolated his substantive due process rights. Because Campos\nhas not met the high standard for stating a substantive due\nprocess claim, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of his\nclaims.\n I. BACKGROUND\n In 1997, Michael Campos began working for the Cook\nCounty Sheriff’s Office as a correctional officer. In August\n2011, he was arrested for driving under the influence, striking\na vehicle, and leaving the scene of an accident. Campos self-\nreported the incident, and the sheriff suspended him without\npay on November 29, 2011, and referred him for termination.\nBy law, the Cook County Sheriff’s Merit Board has exclusive\nauthority to terminate Sheriff’s Office employees. 55 Ill.\nComp. Stat. 5/3-7012.\n While the Merit Board proceedings were ongoing, the\nCook County Circuit Court granted Campos’s motion to sup-\npress and quashed his arrest. On October 15, 2015, the Merit\nBoard voted to terminate Campos for violating state law. He\npetitioned the circuit court for review approximately one year\nlater. On January 18, 2017, the circuit court granted Campos’s\npetition, vacated the Merit Board’s decision as too vague to\nallow for judicial review, and remanded for a second attempt.\n In April 2017, the Merit Board once again voted to termi-\nnate Campos. He sought judicial review. And on March 9,\n2018, the circuit court vacated and remanded a second time.\nBut this time, the court vacated the Merit Board’s decision not\nbecause of some defect in the reasoning but because of a de-\nfect in the Merit Board’s composition.\n\fNo. 18-3472 3\n\n The circuit court relied upon a developing line of cases in-\nvolving interim appointments to the Merit Board. In Taylor v.\nDart, the Illinois Appellate Court found that the Merit Board\nAct does not permit the sheriff to appoint Merit Board mem-\nbers to terms of fewer than six years. 64 N.E.3d 123, 130 (Il.\nApp. Ct. 2016) (citing 55 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/3–7002). Because\none member of the Merit Board was serving an interim term\nwhen the Board voted to terminate the plaintiff, the Taylor\ncourt held that the decision was void. Id. at 132. The circuit\ncourt found that the reasoning in Taylor applied with equal\nforce to Campos. When the Merit Board voted to terminate\nhim, one member was serving an interim term. 1\n At this point, it had been almost seven years since the sher-\niff suspended Campos without pay. Rather than wait for a\nthird Merit Board decision, he filed suit in federal court. Cam-\npos’s initial complaint—filed on March 29, 2018—named\neighteen defendants and advanced five claims. Besides suing\nCook County, the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office, the\nsheriff, the Merit Board, and the Board’s members, he also\nsued the law firm Steptoe and Johnson, LLP, and three of its\nattorneys (who represented the county in the circuit court\nproceedings). On May 2, 2018, the Steptoe defendants filed a\nmotion to dismiss the claims against them. The district court\nscheduled a hearing on the motion for May 11, 2018.\n On May 10, Campos filed an amended complaint in which\nhe renewed his claims against all defendants (except the Cook\n\n\n 1 After Taylor, the Illinois General Assembly amended the Merit Board\n\nAct to allow the sheriff to make interim appointments. 55 Ill. Comp. Stat.\n5/3-7002 (as amended effective Dec. 8, 2017). The sheriff has now reconsti-\ntuted the Board, correcting the problem identified in Taylor.\n\f4 No. 18-3472\n\nCounty State’s Attorney’s Office) and added a sixth claim (for\nFirst Amendment retaliation). The district court held the al-\nready-scheduled hearing the next day. When plaintiff’s coun-\nsel advised the court that he had filed an amended complaint\nthe day before, the court noted that it had not granted leave\nto file an amended complaint. The court referred to the Local\nRules for the Northern District of Illinois and concluded that\nthe original complaint remained the operative document. See\nN.D. Ill. L.R. 5.3(b) (“Every motion or objection shall be ac-\ncompanied by a notice of presentment specifying the date and\ntime on which, and judge before whom, the motion or objec-\ntion is to be presented.”). After that finding, the court dis-\nmissed the Steptoe defendants with prejudice.\n Several months later, the remaining defendants filed a mo-\ntion to dismiss the amended complaint. On November 5, 2018,\nthe court granted that motion and dismissed the amended\ncomplaint with prejudice. Campos appealed.\n II. ANALYSIS\n We review the dismissal of a complaint for failure to state\na claim de novo. Kanter v. Barr, 919 F.3d 437, 440 (7th Cir. 2019).\nCampos’s amended complaint advances two substantive due\nprocess claims, three conspiracy claims, and one First Amend-\nment retaliation claim. Oddly, Campos does not bring a pro-\ncedural due process claim, focusing instead on substantive\ndue process. He does suggest that his conspiracy claims might\nbe either substantive or procedural, but a plaintiff cannot\nbring a § 1983 claim for conspiracy to deny a civil right unless\nthe plaintiff states an underlying claim for denial of a right.\nArcher v. Chisholm, 870 F.3d 603, 620 (7th Cir. 2017). Section\n1983 conspiracy claims are derivative; they cannot stand\nalone. In other words, because he has alleged no underlying\n\fNo. 18-3472 5\n\nprocedural due process violation, his conspiracy claims can-\nnot be procedural in nature.\n Accordingly, we limit our analysis to whether Campos has\nstated substantive due process claims. For the reasons that fol-\nlow, he has not. And, although Campos spends considerable\ntime discussing recent decisions by the Illinois appellate\ncourts which limit Taylor’s impact, we find this line of argu-\nment to be a red herring. Because Campos did not state cog-\nnizable claims, the district court properly dismissed with prej-\nudice.\n A. Campos Did Not State Substantive Due Process Claims\n “[T]he scope of substantive due process is very limited.”\nTun v. Whitticker, 398 F.3d 899, 902 (7th Cir. 2005) (citing Wash-\nington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997)). And courts should\nbe “reluctant to expand the concept of substantive due pro-\ncess because guideposts for responsible decisionmaking in\nthis unchartered area are scarce and open-ended.” Collins v.\nCity of Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 125 (1992). Given its slip-\npery nature, the requirements for stating a substantive due\nprocess claim are similarly vague. A plaintiff must allege that\nthe government violated a fundamental right or liberty.\nGlucksberg, 521 U.S. at 720; Belcher v. Norton, 497 F.3d 742, 753\n(7th Cir. 2007). And that violation must have been arbitrary\nand irrational. Cty. of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 845\n(1998); Idris v. City of Chicago, 552 F.3d 564, 566 (7th Cir. 2009).\nSubstantive due process protects against only the most egre-\ngious and outrageous government action. See Lewis, 523 U.S.\nat 845; Belcher, 497 F.3d at 753 (7th Cir. 2007).\n “[E]mployment-related rights are not fundamental.” Palka\nv. Shelton, 623 F.3d 447, 453 (7th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, a\n\f6 No. 18-3472\n\npublic employee alleging wrongful termination cannot state a\nsubstantive due process claim “unless the employee also al-\nleges the defendants violated some other constitutional right\nor that state remedies were inadequate.” Id. (citing Montgom-\nery v. Stefaniak, 410 F.3d 933, 939 (7th Cir. 2005)). Thus, to state\na claim, Campos must allege that the defendants deprived\nhim of a state-created property interest by arbitrary and irra-\ntional conduct and that the defendants either committed a\nseparate constitutional violation or state law remedies are in-\nadequate. Galdikas v. Fagan, 342 F.3d 684, 691 (7th Cir. 2003),\nabrogated on other grounds by Spiegla v. Hull, 371 F.3d 928 (7th\nCir. 2004).\n Campos spends considerable time arguing that he pos-\nsesses a property interest in continued employment. The de-\nfendants do not deny he does, and we assume the same. The\ndispositive question is whether Campos’s allegations satisfy\nthe remaining elements.\n To begin with, Campos hasn’t alleged an independent\nconstitutional violation. He seems to contend that “[h]is prop-\nerty interest was the other constitutional right.” But the exist-\nence of a property right is a predicate to a due process claim.\nHudson v. City of Chicago, 374 F.3d 554, 559 (7th Cir. 2004).\nCampos’s alleged property interest in his employment satis-\nfies one element of his due process claim, but it doesn’t con-\nstitute an independent constitutional claim on its own.\n On appeal, Campos makes no mention of the First Amend-\nment retaliation claim which he alleged in his amended com-\nplaint. Accordingly, he has waived any challenge to the dis-\ntrict court’s dismissal of that claim. Puffer v. Allstate Ins. Co.,\n675 F.3d 709, 718 (7th Cir. 2012). Campos does make several\nopaque references to “stigma-plus claims” in his opening\n\fNo. 18-3472 7\n\nbrief. But he never explains what he means by that term, much\nless cite any cases articulating the elements of the claim or\nclearly identifying the facts which might support its applica-\ntion here. 2 Campos has waived this underdeveloped argu-\nment. Id. Accordingly, Campos has not identified any inde-\npendent constitutional violations which might support his\nsubstantive due process claim.\n Campos also argues that the protracted state court pro-\nceedings demonstrate the inadequacy of his state law reme-\ndies. He cites to cases which establish that public employers\nmust provide tenured employees with a timely and meaning-\nful hearing before termination. See, e.g., Cleveland Bd. of Educ.\nv. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 541 (1985); Hudson, 374 F.3d at 559.\nBut these cases discuss the minimum procedural due process\nrequirements for terminating public employees. Campos has\nalleged substantive due process violations.\n Campos’s allegations fall short. To begin with, his state\ncourt remedies have, in fact, been effective. He’s twice con-\nvinced the circuit court to vacate the Merit Board’s decision.\nThe fact that the circuit court identified problems in both\nMerit Board decisions doesn’t show that the Merit Board\n\n2 In his reply brief, Campos finally unveils the basis for this mysterious\n“stigma-plus” claim. He seems to mean what we’ve referred to as an “oc-\ncupational-liberty claim.” See Palka, 623 F.3d at 454 (“An occupational-lib-\nerty claim may arise when, after an adverse employment action, a public\nemployer stigmatizes the employee by making public comments impugn-\ning his good name, honor, or reputation or imposes a stigma that fore-\ncloses other employment opportunities.”). This is too little, too late. Parties\nwaive arguments which they develop for the first time in a reply brief.\nHarris v. Warrick Cty. Sheriff's Dep’t, 666 F.3d 444, 448 (7th Cir. 2012)\n\f8 No. 18-3472\n\nprocedures are inadequate—it demonstrates that the review\nprocess has worked. See Palka, 623 F.3d at 453 (holding that\nthe Merit Board disciplinary process satisfies Cook County’s\nprocedural due process obligation).\n Of course, the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees Cam-\npos an opportunity to be heard regarding his termination “at\na meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” Logan v.\nZimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422, 437 (1982) (quoting Arm-\nstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965)). Eventually, justice\ndelayed is justice denied. See Schroeder v. City of Chicago, 927\nF.2d 957, 960 (7th Cir. 1991) (“[A]t some point delay must\nripen into deprivation, because otherwise a suit alleging dep-\nrivation would be forever premature.”). And almost eight\nyears have elapsed since the sheriff first suspended Campos.\n But there is no bright-line rule for determining when pro-\ntracted review proceedings run afoul of due process. See\nMathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976) (explaining that\ncourts identify due process requirements by carefully weigh-\ning the relevant interests). And state law remedies fail to sat-\nisfy due process only when they are “meaningless or nonex-\nistent.” Michalowicz v. Vill. of Bedford Park, 528 F.3d 530, 535\n(7th Cir. 2008) (rejecting a procedural due process claim\nbrought by a terminated firefighter) (quoting Easter House v.\nFelder, 910 F.2d 1387, 1406 (7th Cir. 1990)). We do not opine on\nwhether the lengthy termination process satisfies Campos’s\nprocedural due process rights (though we do note that federal\nlawsuits often pend for several years, especially if remanded\nto the district court). See Easter House, 910 F.2d at 1406\n(“[A]lmost all litigation, whether conducted in a state or fed-\neral forum, may be characterized as a lengthy and speculative\n\fNo. 18-3472 9\n\nprocess.”). But the eight-year process is certainly not so arbi-\ntrary or outrageous as to violate substantive due process. 3\n We offer no opinion regarding when delays in reaching a\nfinal adjudication might offend procedural due process. We\nmerely find that the convoluted proceedings here are evi-\ndence that Campos has received repeated—and efficacious—\nopportunities to challenge his termination. The district court\nproperly dismissed Campos’s due process and conspiracy\nclaims.\n B. The District Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion By Dismiss-\ning Campos’s Claims With Prejudice\n Finally, Campos argues that the district court erred when\nit dismissed his claims with prejudice. We review that deci-\nsion for abuse of discretion. Haywood v. Massage Envy Fran-\nchising, LLC, 887 F.3d 329, 335 (7th Cir. 2018). The court cer-\ntainly did not err when it dismissed Campos’s amended com-\nplaint with prejudice. For the reasons we’ve just articulated,\n\n 3 We note, briefly, that post-Taylor developments in Illinois law do not\n\naffect our analysis (despite Campos’s arguments to the contrary). In Lopez\nv. Dart, the Illinois appellate court applied the de facto officer doctrine—\nwhich confers validity on acts performed by a person acting under color\nof title even if a later defect in his or her appointment comes to light—to\nMerit Board decisions. 118 N.E.3d 580, 591, 595 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). Ac-\ncordingly, only the first challenger may invalidate the agency decision.\nThe Illinois court of appeals issued Lopez after the circuit court vacated the\nsecond Merit Board decision in Campos’s case. The district court observed\nthat this decision may have been erroneous (and the County has asked the\ncircuit court for reconsideration). Naturally, Campos disagrees. He argues\nthat de facto officers can still commit constitutional violations. That’s un-\ndoubtedly true but ultimately irrelevant because he hasn’t stated a claim.\nWe, of course, offer no opinion regarding the proper resolution of Cam-\npos’s appeal before the circuit court.\n\f10 No. 18-3472\n\nCampos did not state claims upon which relief could be\nbased, and a district court need not grant leave to amend if\nthere doesn’t seem to be a plausible way to cure the defects.\nGonzalez-Koeneke v. West, 791 F.3d 801, 808 (7th Cir. 2015).\n We are slightly more concerned about the district court’s\ndismissal of the Steptoe defendants (back in May 2018). That\ndismissal came after Campos filed an amended complaint as\nof right (as permitted by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure\n15(a)(B)) but before defendants filed a motion to dismiss that\nnew complaint. At the May 11, 2018, hearing, the district court\nsuggested that the amended complaint wasn’t properly filed\nbecause it hadn’t been “presented,” as required by the Local\nRules. N.D. Ill. L.R. 5.3(b) (“Every motion or objection shall be\naccompanied by a notice of presentment specifying the date\nand time on which, and judge before whom, the motion or\nobjection is to be presented.”).\n Local Rule 5.3(b) applies only to motions or objections,\nand an amended complaint filed as of right is neither. The dis-\ntrict court thus dismissed the Steptoe defendants sua sponte\nand without considering the facts alleged against them in the\noperative complaint.\n If Campos could conceivably state a claim against the\nSteptoe attorneys, we would remand. But § 1983 plaintiffs can\nsue private attorneys for constitutional violations only if they\nwere “engaged in a conspiracy with state officials to deprive\nanother of federal rights.” Tower v. Glover, 467 U.S. 914, 920\n(1984). And given Campos’s failure to state any underlying\nconstitutional claims, he hasn’t alleged any conspiracy be-\ntween the Steptoe defendants and county defendants. Ac-\ncordingly, remand would be futile. See Shockley v. Jones, 823\nF.2d 1068, 1073 (7th Cir. 1987) (explaining that the court\n\fNo. 18-3472 11\n\nimproperly dismissed the complaint sua sponte but finding\nthat remand would be futile because his proposed amended\ncomplaint did not state a claim either); Baker v. Dir., U.S. Pa-\nrole Comm’n, 916 F.2d 725, 726 (D.C. Cir. 1990).\n III. CONCLUSION\n The Cook County Sheriff referred Campos for termination\nin 2011, and the proceedings are still pending to this day. But\nthe lengthy review process demonstrates Campos’s success in\nattacking the Merit Board’s decisions, not the inadequacy of\nthe state remedies. The doctrine of substantive due process\ndoes not guarantee expeditious review; it merely protects fun-\ndamental rights from government deprivation by arbitrary\nand outrageous conduct. He doesn’t allege any such conduct\nhere. AFFIRMED.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Michael O. CAMPOS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COOK COUNTY, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-08-05\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-3472\\nMICHAEL O. CAMPOS,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n v.\\n\\nCOOK COUNTY, et al.,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 18-cv-2305 — Charles R. Norgle, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED MAY 29, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 5, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before KANNE, SYKES, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\\n KANNE, Circuit Judge. After Michael Campos’s August\\n2011 arrest for driving under the influence, his employer—the\\nCook County Sheriff’s Office—began termination proceed-\\nings. The Merit Board has voted to terminate Campos’s em-\\nployment on two occasions. But both times the Cook County\\nCircuit Court vacated the decision. And, to this day, the ter-\\nmination proceedings are ongoing. Instead of waiting for\\ntheir completion, Campos filed this federal law suit alleging,\\n\\f2 No. 18-3472\\n\\namong other things, that the protracted proceedings have vi-\\nolated his substantive due process rights. Because Campos\\nhas not met the high standard for stating a substantive due\\nprocess claim, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of his\\nclaims.\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n In 1997, Michael Campos began working for the Cook\\nCounty Sheriff’s Office as a correctional officer. In August\\n2011, he was arrested for driving under the influence, striking\\na vehicle, and leaving the scene of an accident. Campos self-\\nreported the incident, and the sheriff suspended him without\\npay on November 29, 2011, and referred him for termination.\\nBy law, the Cook County Sheriff’s Merit Board has exclusive\\nauthority to terminate Sheriff’s Office employees. 55 Ill.\\nComp. Stat. 5/3-7012.\\n While the Merit Board proceedings were ongoing, the\\nCook County Circuit Court granted Campos’s motion to sup-\\npress and quashed his arrest. On October 15, 2015, the Merit\\nBoard voted to terminate Campos for violating state law. He\\npetitioned the circuit court for review approximately one year\\nlater. On January 18, 2017, the circuit court granted Campos’s\\npetition, vacated the Merit Board’s decision as too vague to\\nallow for judicial review, and remanded for a second attempt.\\n In April 2017, the Merit Board once again voted to termi-\\nnate Campos. He sought judicial review. And on March 9,\\n2018, the circuit court vacated and remanded a second time.\\nBut this time, the court vacated the Merit Board’s decision not\\nbecause of some defect in the reasoning but because of a de-\\nfect in the Merit Board’s composition.\\n\\fNo. 18-3472 3\\n\\n The circuit court relied upon a developing line of cases in-\\nvolving interim appointments to the Merit Board. In Taylor v.\\nDart, the Illinois Appellate Court found that the Merit Board\\nAct does not permit the sheriff to appoint Merit Board mem-\\nbers to terms of fewer than six years. 64 N.E.3d 123, 130 (Il.\\nApp. Ct. 2016) (citing 55 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/3–7002). Because\\none member of the Merit Board was serving an interim term\\nwhen the Board voted to terminate the plaintiff, the Taylor\\ncourt held that the decision was void. Id. at 132. The circuit\\ncourt found that the reasoning in Taylor applied with equal\\nforce to Campos. When the Merit Board voted to terminate\\nhim, one member was serving an interim term. 1\\n At this point, it had been almost seven years since the sher-\\niff suspended Campos without pay. Rather than wait for a\\nthird Merit Board decision, he filed suit in federal court. Cam-\\npos’s initial complaint—filed on March 29, 2018—named\\neighteen defendants and advanced five claims. Besides suing\\nCook County, the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office, the\\nsheriff, the Merit Board, and the Board’s members, he also\\nsued the law firm Steptoe and Johnson, LLP, and three of its\\nattorneys (who represented the county in the circuit court\\nproceedings). On May 2, 2018, the Steptoe defendants filed a\\nmotion to dismiss the claims against them. The district court\\nscheduled a hearing on the motion for May 11, 2018.\\n On May 10, Campos filed an amended complaint in which\\nhe renewed his claims against all defendants (except the Cook\\n\\n\\n 1 After Taylor, the Illinois General Assembly amended the Merit Board\\n\\nAct to allow the sheriff to make interim appointments. 55 Ill. Comp. Stat.\\n5/3-7002 (as amended effective Dec. 8, 2017). The sheriff has now reconsti-\\ntuted the Board, correcting the problem identified in Taylor.\\n\\f4 No. 18-3472\\n\\nCounty State’s Attorney’s Office) and added a sixth claim (for\\nFirst Amendment retaliation). The district court held the al-\\nready-scheduled hearing the next day. When plaintiff’s coun-\\nsel advised the court that he had filed an amended complaint\\nthe day before, the court noted that it had not granted leave\\nto file an amended complaint. The court referred to the Local\\nRules for the Northern District of Illinois and concluded that\\nthe original complaint remained the operative document. See\\nN.D. Ill. L.R. 5.3(b) (“Every motion or objection shall be ac-\\ncompanied by a notice of presentment specifying the date and\\ntime on which, and judge before whom, the motion or objec-\\ntion is to be presented.”). After that finding, the court dis-\\nmissed the Steptoe defendants with prejudice.\\n Several months later, the remaining defendants filed a mo-\\ntion to dismiss the amended complaint. On November 5, 2018,\\nthe court granted that motion and dismissed the amended\\ncomplaint with prejudice. Campos appealed.\\n II. ANALYSIS\\n We review the dismissal of a complaint for failure to state\\na claim de novo. Kanter v. Barr, 919 F.3d 437, 440 (7th Cir. 2019).\\nCampos’s amended complaint advances two substantive due\\nprocess claims, three conspiracy claims, and one First Amend-\\nment retaliation claim. Oddly, Campos does not bring a pro-\\ncedural due process claim, focusing instead on substantive\\ndue process. He does suggest that his conspiracy claims might\\nbe either substantive or procedural, but a plaintiff cannot\\nbring a § 1983 claim for conspiracy to deny a civil right unless\\nthe plaintiff states an underlying claim for denial of a right.\\nArcher v. Chisholm, 870 F.3d 603, 620 (7th Cir. 2017). Section\\n1983 conspiracy claims are derivative; they cannot stand\\nalone. In other words, because he has alleged no underlying\\n\\fNo. 18-3472 5\\n\\nprocedural due process violation, his conspiracy claims can-\\nnot be procedural in nature.\\n Accordingly, we limit our analysis to whether Campos has\\nstated substantive due process claims. For the reasons that fol-\\nlow, he has not. And, although Campos spends considerable\\ntime discussing recent decisions by the Illinois appellate\\ncourts which limit Taylor’s impact, we find this line of argu-\\nment to be a red herring. Because Campos did not state cog-\\nnizable claims, the district court properly dismissed with prej-\\nudice.\\n A. Campos Did Not State Substantive Due Process Claims\\n “[T]he scope of substantive due process is very limited.”\\nTun v. Whitticker, 398 F.3d 899, 902 (7th Cir. 2005) (citing Wash-\\nington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997)). And courts should\\nbe “reluctant to expand the concept of substantive due pro-\\ncess because guideposts for responsible decisionmaking in\\nthis unchartered area are scarce and open-ended.” Collins v.\\nCity of Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 125 (1992). Given its slip-\\npery nature, the requirements for stating a substantive due\\nprocess claim are similarly vague. A plaintiff must allege that\\nthe government violated a fundamental right or liberty.\\nGlucksberg, 521 U.S. at 720; Belcher v. Norton, 497 F.3d 742, 753\\n(7th Cir. 2007). And that violation must have been arbitrary\\nand irrational. Cty. of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 845\\n(1998); Idris v. City of Chicago, 552 F.3d 564, 566 (7th Cir. 2009).\\nSubstantive due process protects against only the most egre-\\ngious and outrageous government action. See Lewis, 523 U.S.\\nat 845; Belcher, 497 F.3d at 753 (7th Cir. 2007).\\n “[E]mployment-related rights are not fundamental.” Palka\\nv. Shelton, 623 F.3d 447, 453 (7th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, a\\n\\f6 No. 18-3472\\n\\npublic employee alleging wrongful termination cannot state a\\nsubstantive due process claim “unless the employee also al-\\nleges the defendants violated some other constitutional right\\nor that state remedies were inadequate.” Id. (citing Montgom-\\nery v. Stefaniak, 410 F.3d 933, 939 (7th Cir. 2005)). Thus, to state\\na claim, Campos must allege that the defendants deprived\\nhim of a state-created property interest by arbitrary and irra-\\ntional conduct and that the defendants either committed a\\nseparate constitutional violation or state law remedies are in-\\nadequate. Galdikas v. Fagan, 342 F.3d 684, 691 (7th Cir. 2003),\\nabrogated on other grounds by Spiegla v. Hull, 371 F.3d 928 (7th\\nCir. 2004).\\n Campos spends considerable time arguing that he pos-\\nsesses a property interest in continued employment. The de-\\nfendants do not deny he does, and we assume the same. The\\ndispositive question is whether Campos’s allegations satisfy\\nthe remaining elements.\\n To begin with, Campos hasn’t alleged an independent\\nconstitutional violation. He seems to contend that “[h]is prop-\\nerty interest was the other constitutional right.” But the exist-\\nence of a property right is a predicate to a due process claim.\\nHudson v. City of Chicago, 374 F.3d 554, 559 (7th Cir. 2004).\\nCampos’s alleged property interest in his employment satis-\\nfies one element of his due process claim, but it doesn’t con-\\nstitute an independent constitutional claim on its own.\\n On appeal, Campos makes no mention of the First Amend-\\nment retaliation claim which he alleged in his amended com-\\nplaint. Accordingly, he has waived any challenge to the dis-\\ntrict court’s dismissal of that claim. Puffer v. Allstate Ins. Co.,\\n675 F.3d 709, 718 (7th Cir. 2012). Campos does make several\\nopaque references to “stigma-plus claims” in his opening\\n\\fNo. 18-3472 7\\n\\nbrief. But he never explains what he means by that term, much\\nless cite any cases articulating the elements of the claim or\\nclearly identifying the facts which might support its applica-\\ntion here. 2 Campos has waived this underdeveloped argu-\\nment. Id. Accordingly, Campos has not identified any inde-\\npendent constitutional violations which might support his\\nsubstantive due process claim.\\n Campos also argues that the protracted state court pro-\\nceedings demonstrate the inadequacy of his state law reme-\\ndies. He cites to cases which establish that public employers\\nmust provide tenured employees with a timely and meaning-\\nful hearing before termination. See, e.g., Cleveland Bd. of Educ.\\nv. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 541 (1985); Hudson, 374 F.3d at 559.\\nBut these cases discuss the minimum procedural due process\\nrequirements for terminating public employees. Campos has\\nalleged substantive due process violations.\\n Campos’s allegations fall short. To begin with, his state\\ncourt remedies have, in fact, been effective. He’s twice con-\\nvinced the circuit court to vacate the Merit Board’s decision.\\nThe fact that the circuit court identified problems in both\\nMerit Board decisions doesn’t show that the Merit Board\\n\\n2 In his reply brief, Campos finally unveils the basis for this mysterious\\n“stigma-plus” claim. He seems to mean what we’ve referred to as an “oc-\\ncupational-liberty claim.” See Palka, 623 F.3d at 454 (“An occupational-lib-\\nerty claim may arise when, after an adverse employment action, a public\\nemployer stigmatizes the employee by making public comments impugn-\\ning his good name, honor, or reputation or imposes a stigma that fore-\\ncloses other employment opportunities.”). This is too little, too late. Parties\\nwaive arguments which they develop for the first time in a reply brief.\\nHarris v. Warrick Cty. Sheriff's Dep’t, 666 F.3d 444, 448 (7th Cir. 2012)\\n\\f8 No. 18-3472\\n\\nprocedures are inadequate—it demonstrates that the review\\nprocess has worked. See Palka, 623 F.3d at 453 (holding that\\nthe Merit Board disciplinary process satisfies Cook County’s\\nprocedural due process obligation).\\n Of course, the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees Cam-\\npos an opportunity to be heard regarding his termination “at\\na meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” Logan v.\\nZimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422, 437 (1982) (quoting Arm-\\nstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965)). Eventually, justice\\ndelayed is justice denied. See Schroeder v. City of Chicago, 927\\nF.2d 957, 960 (7th Cir. 1991) (“[A]t some point delay must\\nripen into deprivation, because otherwise a suit alleging dep-\\nrivation would be forever premature.”). And almost eight\\nyears have elapsed since the sheriff first suspended Campos.\\n But there is no bright-line rule for determining when pro-\\ntracted review proceedings run afoul of due process. See\\nMathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976) (explaining that\\ncourts identify due process requirements by carefully weigh-\\ning the relevant interests). And state law remedies fail to sat-\\nisfy due process only when they are “meaningless or nonex-\\nistent.” Michalowicz v. Vill. of Bedford Park, 528 F.3d 530, 535\\n(7th Cir. 2008) (rejecting a procedural due process claim\\nbrought by a terminated firefighter) (quoting Easter House v.\\nFelder, 910 F.2d 1387, 1406 (7th Cir. 1990)). We do not opine on\\nwhether the lengthy termination process satisfies Campos’s\\nprocedural due process rights (though we do note that federal\\nlawsuits often pend for several years, especially if remanded\\nto the district court). See Easter House, 910 F.2d at 1406\\n(“[A]lmost all litigation, whether conducted in a state or fed-\\neral forum, may be characterized as a lengthy and speculative\\n\\fNo. 18-3472 9\\n\\nprocess.”). But the eight-year process is certainly not so arbi-\\ntrary or outrageous as to violate substantive due process. 3\\n We offer no opinion regarding when delays in reaching a\\nfinal adjudication might offend procedural due process. We\\nmerely find that the convoluted proceedings here are evi-\\ndence that Campos has received repeated—and efficacious—\\nopportunities to challenge his termination. The district court\\nproperly dismissed Campos’s due process and conspiracy\\nclaims.\\n B. The District Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion By Dismiss-\\ning Campos’s Claims With Prejudice\\n Finally, Campos argues that the district court erred when\\nit dismissed his claims with prejudice. We review that deci-\\nsion for abuse of discretion. Haywood v. Massage Envy Fran-\\nchising, LLC, 887 F.3d 329, 335 (7th Cir. 2018). The court cer-\\ntainly did not err when it dismissed Campos’s amended com-\\nplaint with prejudice. For the reasons we’ve just articulated,\\n\\n 3 We note, briefly, that post-Taylor developments in Illinois law do not\\n\\naffect our analysis (despite Campos’s arguments to the contrary). In Lopez\\nv. Dart, the Illinois appellate court applied the de facto officer doctrine—\\nwhich confers validity on acts performed by a person acting under color\\nof title even if a later defect in his or her appointment comes to light—to\\nMerit Board decisions. 118 N.E.3d 580, 591, 595 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). Ac-\\ncordingly, only the first challenger may invalidate the agency decision.\\nThe Illinois court of appeals issued Lopez after the circuit court vacated the\\nsecond Merit Board decision in Campos’s case. The district court observed\\nthat this decision may have been erroneous (and the County has asked the\\ncircuit court for reconsideration). Naturally, Campos disagrees. He argues\\nthat de facto officers can still commit constitutional violations. That’s un-\\ndoubtedly true but ultimately irrelevant because he hasn’t stated a claim.\\nWe, of course, offer no opinion regarding the proper resolution of Cam-\\npos’s appeal before the circuit court.\\n\\f10 No. 18-3472\\n\\nCampos did not state claims upon which relief could be\\nbased, and a district court need not grant leave to amend if\\nthere doesn’t seem to be a plausible way to cure the defects.\\nGonzalez-Koeneke v. West, 791 F.3d 801, 808 (7th Cir. 2015).\\n We are slightly more concerned about the district court’s\\ndismissal of the Steptoe defendants (back in May 2018). That\\ndismissal came after Campos filed an amended complaint as\\nof right (as permitted by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure\\n15(a)(B)) but before defendants filed a motion to dismiss that\\nnew complaint. At the May 11, 2018, hearing, the district court\\nsuggested that the amended complaint wasn’t properly filed\\nbecause it hadn’t been “presented,” as required by the Local\\nRules. N.D. Ill. L.R. 5.3(b) (“Every motion or objection shall be\\naccompanied by a notice of presentment specifying the date\\nand time on which, and judge before whom, the motion or\\nobjection is to be presented.”).\\n Local Rule 5.3(b) applies only to motions or objections,\\nand an amended complaint filed as of right is neither. The dis-\\ntrict court thus dismissed the Steptoe defendants sua sponte\\nand without considering the facts alleged against them in the\\noperative complaint.\\n If Campos could conceivably state a claim against the\\nSteptoe attorneys, we would remand. But § 1983 plaintiffs can\\nsue private attorneys for constitutional violations only if they\\nwere “engaged in a conspiracy with state officials to deprive\\nanother of federal rights.” Tower v. Glover, 467 U.S. 914, 920\\n(1984). And given Campos’s failure to state any underlying\\nconstitutional claims, he hasn’t alleged any conspiracy be-\\ntween the Steptoe defendants and county defendants. Ac-\\ncordingly, remand would be futile. See Shockley v. Jones, 823\\nF.2d 1068, 1073 (7th Cir. 1987) (explaining that the court\\n\\fNo. 18-3472 11\\n\\nimproperly dismissed the complaint sua sponte but finding\\nthat remand would be futile because his proposed amended\\ncomplaint did not state a claim either); Baker v. Dir., U.S. Pa-\\nrole Comm’n, 916 F.2d 725, 726 (D.C. Cir. 1990).\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n The Cook County Sheriff referred Campos for termination\\nin 2011, and the proceedings are still pending to this day. But\\nthe lengthy review process demonstrates Campos’s success in\\nattacking the Merit Board’s decisions, not the inadequacy of\\nthe state remedies. The doctrine of substantive due process\\ndoes not guarantee expeditious review; it merely protects fun-\\ndamental rights from government deprivation by arbitrary\\nand outrageous conduct. He doesn’t allege any such conduct\\nhere. AFFIRMED.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3784,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4645587,"string":"4,645,587"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Laverne Williams v. Scott Jaffe"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-08-05"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-2726"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before BAUER, HAMILTON, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"William Joseph Bauer\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\nNo. 18-2726\\n\\nIN RE: SCOTT N. JAFFE,\\n Debtor-Appellee,\\nAPPEAL OF: LAVERNE WILLIAMS.\\n\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 17 C 04662 — John J. Tharp, Jr., Judge.\\n\\n\\n\\n ARGUED FEBRUARY 7, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 5, 2019\\n\\n\\n Before BAUER, HAMILTON, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\\n BAUER, Circuit Judge. Section 522(b)(1) of the United States\\nBankruptcy Code states that a “debtor may exempt from\\nproperty of the [bankruptcy] estate the property listed in either\\nparagraph (2) or, in the alternative paragraph (3).” At issue in\\nthis case is paragraph (3) subsection (B), which states, in full,\\nthat:\\n Property listed in this paragraph is any interest\\n in property which the debtor had, immediately\\n before the commencement of the case, an inter-\\n est as a tenant by the entirety or joint tenant to\\n\\f2 No. 18-2726\\n\\n the extent that such interest as a tenant by the\\n entirety or joint tenant is exempt from process\\n under applicable nonbankruptcy law.\\n11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(3)(B). We must determine to what extent\\ncontingent future interests created by Illinois law are exempt\\nunder this section. The most natural reading of the statute\\nexempts any interest held by an individual as a tenant by the\\nentirety to the extent that state law exempts that particular\\ninterest. The district court found that any interest held by the\\ndebtor is exempt to the extent that state law exempted the\\nentirety interest. We reverse the district court and hold that the\\ndebtor’s property cannot be excluded from the bankruptcy\\nestate.\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n In 1998, Laverne Williams wanted to file a medical malprac-\\ntice lawsuit and hired Scott Jaffe to be her attorney. The statute\\nof limitations expired before Jaffe filed a complaint and\\nWilliams sued for legal malpractice, obtained a default\\njudgment, and recorded that judgment on a property that Jaffe\\nand his wife owned as tenants by the entirety. Williams now\\nclaims post-judgment interest brings her total claim against\\nJaffe to $1.04 million.\\n Jaffe filed a chapter 7 bankruptcy petition in November\\n2015, which identified his debt to Williams and indicated it\\nwas secured by a judgment lien on his residence. On the\\npetition date Jaffe and his wife owned the property as tenants\\nby the entirety, but before bankruptcy proceedings were\\ncomplete Jaffe’s wife died. According to Illinois law, when his\\nwife died the tenancy by the entirety terminated and Jaffe held\\n\\fNo. 18-2726 3\\n\\nthe property individually in fee simple. To avoid the judgment\\nlien Jaffe filed a motion in the bankruptcy court arguing the\\nproperty was exempt under 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(3)(B). Williams\\nresponded that the property was not exempt because the\\nfederal bankruptcy provision that Jaffe relied upon looks to\\nstate law to determine whether a tenancy property is exempt.\\nBecause Illinois does not exempt contingent future interests,\\nWilliams argued, the federal bankruptcy statute does not allow\\nJaffe to exempt the property from the bankruptcy estate. On\\nappeal the parties renew these arguments.\\n II. DISCUSSION\\n We must first determine whether a lien exists and what\\ninterests it attached to. If no lien exists the debtor cannot seek\\nan exemption under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f) and our inquiry is\\ncomplete. See In re Chinosorn, 243 B.R. 688, 694 (Bankr. N.D. Ill.\\n2000) (noting there are “three elements for lien avoidance: (1) a\\nlien must have fixed on an interest of the debtor in property,\\n(2) the lien must impair an exemption to which the debtor\\nwould have been entitled under § 522(b), and (3) the lien must\\nbe a judicial lien—with the debtor bearing the burden of each\\nelement.”). If a lien attached we must also determine to what\\ninterests it attached. Jaffe argues that, if any lien exists, it\\nattached only to his tenancy interest which is exempt under\\nIllinois law. Williams asserts her lien attached to Jaffe’s\\ncontingent future interest in the property. If we determine a\\nlien attached to a property interest we must then determine\\nwhether that interest is exempt under § 522(b)(3)(B). We will\\naddress each issue in turn.\\n\\f4 No. 18-2726\\n\\n A. The Existence of a Lien\\n If a judicial lien attaches to property that is entitled to\\nexemption from the bankruptcy estate, § 522(f) allows the\\ndebtor to avoid the fixing of the lien. See 11 U.S.C. § 522(f).\\nIllinois courts have not decided whether a judgment lien\\nattaches to the individual interests (in particular contingent\\nfuture interests) of a tenant by the entirety. Where a state’s\\nhighest court has not ruled on an issue, we must apply the law\\nin a manner we believe the state supreme court would, if\\npresented with the issue. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Statewide\\nIns. Co., 352 F.3d 1098, 1100 (7th Cir. 2003).\\n To answer this question we turn to the applicable Illinois\\nstatutes, which have long controlled the attachment of judg-\\nment liens. Lehman v. Cottrell, 19 N.E.2d 111, 114 (2d Dist. 1939)\\n(“At common law, land was subject neither to execution nor to\\nthe lien of a judgment. Both these results are purely statu-\\ntory.”). Section 12–101 of the Illinois code creates judgment\\nliens and controls their ability to attach to certain property\\ninterests. The statute dictates that judgment liens may attach to\\nall “real estate” and defines “real estate” broadly to include all\\n“lands, tenements, hereditaments, and all legal and equitable\\nrights therein.” 735 ILCS 5/12–105.\\n The Illinois legislature enumerated the precise interests\\ntenants by the entirety enjoy individually, including the\\nfollowing contingent future interests: “(a) an interest as a\\ntenant in common in the event of a divorce, (b) an interest as a\\njoint tenant in the event that another homestead is established,\\nand (c) a survivorship interest in the entire property in the\\nevent of the other tenant’s death.” 765 ILCS 1005/1c. These\\n\\fNo. 18-2726 5\\n\\ncontingent future interests fall within the statute’s broad\\ndefinition of “real estate.” Therefore, a judgment lien attaches\\nto these individual interests, absent some exception. See In re\\nTolson, 338 B.R. 359, 369 (C.D. Ill. 2005). The only exception that\\n12-101 identifies is section 12-901—the homestead exception.\\nSee 735 ILCS 5/12-901 (the “homestead and all rights in and\\ntitle to that homestead is exempt from attachment, judgment,\\nlevy or judgment sale for the payment of his or her debts or\\nother purposes … .”).\\n Otherwise, “where the Illinois legislature has determined\\nthat a judgment lien should not be created as to a debtor’s\\ninterest in particular property, it has provided that\\nthe property is ‘exempt from judgment,’ see 735 ILCS 5/12-1001\\n(specified personal property), or that it is not ‘subject to any\\nlien,’ see 820 ILCS 305/21 (workers’ compensation award).”\\nChinosorn, 243 B.R. at 695–95. But Illinois does not “exempt\\nfrom judgment” interests held in tenancy by the entirety or\\ncontingent future interests held by tenants by the entirety.\\nIllinois law merely exempts the tenancy interest from the\\nattachment of a judgment lien. 735 ILCS 5/12-112. Section 12-\\n112 provides that judgment liens may attach to all “lands,\\ntenements, goods and chattels.” It then carves out a narrow\\nexception, the tenancy interest, without mentioning the\\ncontingent future interests explicitly created by the Illinois\\nlegislature.\\n It is clear that if the Illinois legislature wanted to exempt\\nparticular interests from the attachment of judgment liens, it\\nhad no problem in doing so. Because the Illinois legislature\\nfailed to do so, we find that Williams’s judgment lien attached\\nto Jaffe’s contingent future interest in the property. See Yotis,\\n\\f6 No. 18-2726\\n\\n518 B.R. at 486–90; Tolson, 338 B.R. at 367 (holding that “the\\ncontingent right of survivorship of each entireties tenant is a\\npresent property right to which a judgment lien extends.”).\\n B. Exemption Under § 522(b)(3)(B)\\n Tenancy by the entirety is a form of property ownership\\nthat arose out of common law and developed as part of the\\nEnglish feudal system. Oval A. Phipps, Tenancy by the Entire-\\nties, 25 Temp. L.Q. 24 (1951). Until the nineteenth century,\\nmarried women in the United States were subject to coverture.\\nThis meant a wife’s legal identity and property were absorbed\\nby her husband and he was granted legal dominion over\\neverything. Id. Therefore, if a married couple purchased\\nproperty, it could not be owned by the husband and wife\\nbecause both spouses were considered a single legal entity (the\\nhusband). Id. Tenancy by the entirety was created so spouses\\ncould own property jointly and upon the death of one spouse\\nthe property would belong to the surviving spouse. Then,\\n“during the middle and latter part of the nineteenth century,\\nas part of a reform movement aimed at emancipating married\\nwomen from their state of social and economic dependency,\\nthe Married Women’s Property Acts were enacted practically\\nuniversally by the legislatures of the several states.” Id.\\n Following the passage of the Married Women’s Property\\nActs, states splintered in their approach to tenancy by the\\nentirety. Many state courts thought the acts destroyed tenancy\\nby the entirety and a few courts held they were unaffected;\\nseveral state courts gave both spouses the rights of the hus-\\nband under common law and a large number of states found\\nboth spouses had only the limited interests a wife previously\\n\\fNo. 18-2726 7\\n\\nhad under common law. Chinosorn, 243 B.R. at 692–93 (collect-\\ning cases). States also divided over whether tenancy by the\\nentirety encompassed real property and personal property, or\\njust real property. Id. at 693. The Illinois judiciary found that\\nthe state’s Married Women’s Act abolished tenancy by the\\nentirety but, in 1990, the legislature codified tenancy by the\\nentirety for real estate owned by spouses who were using the\\nproperty as their homestead. 765 ILCS 1005/1c.\\n Jurisdictions that recognize tenancy by the entirety,\\nhowever, are not uniform in their approach to creditors’ rights\\nagainst the estate:\\n A creditor’s right to levy on a married person’s\\n property is complex, and varies by state and the\\n type of debt and property. Every state allows\\n satisfaction of a debt which has been jointly\\n incurred by a husband and wife against jointly\\n held property, even if that property is held in a\\n tenancy by the entirety … . Some states allow\\n the satisfaction of an individual spouse’s debt\\n against entireties property, but most do not.\\nCreditors’ Rights Against Entireties Property In and Out of\\nBankruptcy, 1983 Ann. Surv. of Bankr. Law Part II (September\\n1983). With this kaleidoscopic background in mind, we turn\\nto the bankruptcy aspect of this case.\\n A debtor’s bankruptcy estate must include “all legal or\\nequitable interests of the debtor in property as of the com-\\nmencement of the case.” 11 U.S.C. § 541(a). This includes an\\nindividual debtor’s interest in property held as a tenant by the\\nentirety. In re Hunter, 970 F.2d 299, 303 (7th Cir. 1992); Napotnik\\n\\f8 No. 18-2726\\n\\nv. Equibank & Parkvale Savings Association, 679 F.2d 316 (3d Cir.\\n1982). All property in the estate is liquidated by the bankruptcy\\ntrustee and the proceeds are distributed to creditors based on\\ntheir priority. 11 U.S.C. § 704. But the Bankruptcy Code allows\\ndebtors to exempt certain estate property. Exempt property is\\nremoved from the estate and retained by the debtor.\\nSection 522(b)(3)(B) exempts:\\n [a]ny interest in property in which the debtor\\n had, immediately before the commencement of\\n the case, an interest as a tenant by the entirety or\\n joint tenant to the extent that such interest as a\\n tenant by the entirety or joint tenant is exempt\\n from process under applicable nonbankruptcy\\n law.\\nThe law of co-tenancies is almost exclusively a matter of state\\nlaw since there is no general federal property law, therefore,\\nthe “applicable nonbankruptcy law” is Illinois law. The\\nquestion here is to what extent § 522(b)(3)(B) exempts Jaffe’s\\ncontingent future interest in the tenancy property. There is no\\ndispute that a lien that attached to Jaffe’s tenancy interest would\\nbe exempt. However, the nub of this case lies in the exemption\\nof the lesser interests that are not exempted under Illinois law.\\n The district court interpreted § 522(b)(3)(B) to exempt\\nJaffe’s contingent future interest in the entireties property,\\ndespite the fact that Illinois provides no exemption for these\\ninterests. In reaching this conclusion the district court parti-\\ntioned the statutory language into four elements:\\n § 522(b)(3)(B) exempts: (i) any interest in prop-\\n erty; (ii) in which the debtor had an interest as a\\n\\fNo. 18-2726 9\\n\\n tenant in the entirety; (iii) at the time the bank-\\n ruptcy petition was filed; (iv) to the extent that\\n state law exempts an interest as tenant in the\\n entirety from legal process.\\nJaffe v. Williams, No. 1:17-cv-4662, slip op. at *4 (N.D. Ill.\\nMay 22, 2018). The district court noted that Jaffe had an interest\\nas a tenant by the entirety (as well as contingent future\\ninterests) at the time the bankruptcy petition was filed (satisfy-\\ning the first three elements). The district court then concluded\\nthat any interest he held (contingent future interests included)\\nwas exempt to the extent that the tenancy interest was exempt\\nunder Illinois law. And since Illinois exempts the tenancy\\ninterest, more specifically the forced sale of the tenancy\\nproperty to collect a debt against just one tenant, all other\\ninterests Jaffe had as a tenancy by the entirety were exempt\\ncompletely.\\n But the fourth element of the district court’s analysis left\\nout a key word—“such.” Section 522(b)(3)(B) exempts certain\\ninterests “to the extent that such interest as a tenant by the\\nentirety” is exempt under state law. By not giving sufficient\\nweight to the word “such,” the district court interpreted the\\nstatute to mean that any property interest is exempt to the\\nextent that the entirety interest is exempt. But identifying what\\n“such” refers to is the main interpretive issue in this case. If\\n“such” refers just to “any interest,” as Jaffe argues, the district\\ncourt’s conclusion is correct because the statute would exempt\\n“any interest” the debtor had to the extent that any tenancy\\ninterest is exempt from state law. However, if “such interest”\\nrefers to something more limited, like the precise interests the\\n\\f10 No. 18-2726\\n\\ndebtor was seeking to exempt, the district court’s interpreta-\\ntion is incorrect.\\n Section 522(b)(3)(B) begins broadly by stating it exempts\\n“any interest in property.” The provision goes on to state that\\nthe debtor must have an interest in the property “as a tenant by\\nthe entirety” in order to claim an exemption, thus cabining “any\\ninterest in property.” This means that if, for example, a tenant\\nby the entirety transferred her interest in the income the\\nproperty generated, the transferee could not claim an exemp-\\ntion under § 522(b)(3)(B) since she does not hold the interest as\\na tenant by the entirety. The provision goes on to state that the\\nexemption applies “to the extent that such interests as a tenant\\nby the entirety,” meaning the precise interests that the debtor\\nholds as a tenant by the entirety, are exempt under state law.\\n We read this provision to establish two things. First, the\\nopening language indicates the interests that may qualify for\\nexemptions—any interest the debtor has, so long as she holds\\nthat interest as a tenant by the entirety. The provision then\\ndefines which of those qualifying interests are exempt—all of\\nthe debtor’s qualifying interests to the extent that they are\\nexempt under applicable nonbankruptcy law. Our reading of\\nthe statute yields a simple result—interests a debtor holds as\\na tenant by the entirety are exempt to the extent that those\\ninterests the debtor holds as a tenant by the entirety are exempt\\nunder state law.\\n The statutory language does not support the argument that\\n“such interest as a tenant by the entirety” is referring more\\nbroadly to “any interest in property” as Jaffe argues. It is much\\nmore sensible to read “such interest” as referring to the\\n\\fNo. 18-2726 11\\n\\ncomplete introductory phrase, which identifies the debtor’s\\nspecific interests that potentially qualify for an exemption.\\nAdditionally, the signifier (“such interest”) and referent\\n(“interest as a tenant by the entirety”) use mirroring language\\nindicating that the latter is referring to the former: “property in\\nwhich the debtor had … an interest as a tenant by the entirety …\\nto the extent that such interest as a tenant by the entirety” is\\nexempt. This buttresses the conclusion that “such interest” was\\nmeant to refer to the specific interests that the debtor held as a\\ntenant by the entirety, rather than only referring to “any\\ninterest.”\\n Given the variety of rights, interests, and exemptions in\\ntenancy by the entirety, it is likely that Congress enacted\\n§ 522(b)(3)(B) to reflect the full spectrum of different ap-\\nproaches states have taken. See Chinosorn, 243 B.R. at 700 (“the\\napparent intent of the provision is to provide, in bankruptcy,\\na level of protection from claims of creditors identical to the\\nprotection that owners of entireties property would have in\\ncollection proceedings outside of bankruptcy, under applicable\\nstate law.”). “Any interest in property in which the debtor\\nhad … an interest” is broad, inclusive language that signals\\nthat all state exemptions for tenants by the entirety will be\\nhonored in federal bankruptcy court. But the district court’s\\nreading would mean that no matter how nuanced state\\nexemptions for tenants by the entirety are, all interests would\\nbe exempt if the state exempts the entirety interest. This means\\nthat if Illinois decided to explicitly exempt the contingent\\nfuture interests that Williams’s lien attached to, such an\\nexemption would be given no effect by a bankruptcy statute\\n\\f12 No. 18-2726\\n\\nthat relies on state law. This interpretation leads to an absurd\\nresult and could not be what Congress intended.\\n Additionally, our reading of the statute is in line with each\\nof our sister circuits that have considered the issue. While it\\ndoes not appear that those cases involved arguments by the\\nparties that required similar exegesis of the statutory text, the\\nfact that the no party argued otherwise implies that the statute\\nis naturally read as we read it today. See e.g., In re Arango, 992\\nF.2d 611, 613 (6th Cir. 1993) (“[W]e must first look to Tennessee\\nlaw to classify Arango’s interests in entireties property. We\\nthen determine which of those interest is exempt from his\\nbankruptcy estate by determining whether each particular\\ninterest is subject to execution under Tennessee law” (emphasis\\nadded)); Ragsdale v. Genesco, Inc., 674 F.2d 277, 239 (4th Cir.\\n1982) (“The phrase ‘to the extent such interest … is exempt\\nfrom process under applicable nonbankruptcy law’ is of\\ndecisive importance. If the Ragsdales’ residential real property\\ncould be reached to satisfy a state court judgment in Virginia,\\nit could not be successfully claimed as exempt”); Napotnik v.\\nEquibank & Parkvale Sav. Ass’n, 679 F.2d 316 , 322–23 (3d Cir.\\n1982) (“Since the debtor’s interest in the real property owned\\nwith his wife as tenants by the entirety is not exempt from\\nprocess in Pennsylvania because they are joint obligors, he is\\nnot entitled to exempt that portion of his equity subject to\\nEquibank’s judicial lien, and cannot avoid that lien under\\nSection 522(f)”).\\n Here, Williams obtained a judgment lien on Jaffe’s contin-\\ngent future interest that existed when Jaffe filed his bankruptcy\\npetition. The first determination that must be made is whether\\nJaffe’s interest is the kind that potentially qualifies for an\\n\\fNo. 18-2726 13\\n\\nexemption under § 522(b)(3)(B). Any interest can qualify so\\nlong as it is an interest one holds “as a tenant by the entirety.”\\nJaffe held his interest as a tenant by the entirety so we must\\ndetermine whether the interest is exempt. This requires looking\\nto Illinois law to determine whether contingent future interests\\nare exempt from process.\\n The main protection that Illinois law provides tenants by\\nthe entirety is that a creditor is unable to force the sale of the\\nproperty to collect a debt against only one of the tenants. 735\\nILCS 5/12-112 (2014). Illinois law does not make all interests\\nheld by tenants by the entirety immune from process and we\\nneed not look hard for a state that does—Indiana law exempts\\n“any interest the judgment has in real estate as a tenant by the\\nentireties.” Ind. Code § 34-2-28-1(a)(5); In re Paeplow, 972 F.2d\\n730, 737 (7th Cir. 1992). Illinois law explicitly refuses to exempt\\nincome from entirety properties and fails to provide an\\nexemption for the contingent future interests. 765 ILCS 1005/1c;\\nsee also Yotis, 518 B.R. at 489–90 (holding that “any future\\ninterest that may be held by either tenant alone, such as the\\ncontingent future interest, is not exempt at all”). Accordingly,\\nwe find that Jaffe is not entitled to an exemption of his contin-\\ngent future interest. The district court’s conclusion otherwise\\nwas erroneous.\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n Because the statute exempts an individual’s tenancy\\ninterest to the extent that state law exempts that interest, we\\nreverse the decision of the district court and remand for further\\nproceedings consistent with this opinion.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4422840/\", \"author_raw\": \"William Joseph Bauer\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"BAUER"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"HAMILTON"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"BRENNAN"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"BAUER\": \", Circuit\", \"HAMILTON\": \", Circuit\", \"BRENNAN\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645587/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":8,"string":"8"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Laverne Williams v. Scott Jaffe\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-08-05\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\nNo. 18-2726\n\nIN RE: SCOTT N. JAFFE,\n Debtor-Appellee,\nAPPEAL OF: LAVERNE WILLIAMS.\n\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\n No. 17 C 04662 — John J. Tharp, Jr., Judge.\n\n\n\n ARGUED FEBRUARY 7, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 5, 2019\n\n\n Before BAUER, HAMILTON, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\n BAUER, Circuit Judge. Section 522(b)(1) of the United States\nBankruptcy Code states that a “debtor may exempt from\nproperty of the [bankruptcy] estate the property listed in either\nparagraph (2) or, in the alternative paragraph (3).” At issue in\nthis case is paragraph (3) subsection (B), which states, in full,\nthat:\n Property listed in this paragraph is any interest\n in property which the debtor had, immediately\n before the commencement of the case, an inter-\n est as a tenant by the entirety or joint tenant to\n\f2 No. 18-2726\n\n the extent that such interest as a tenant by the\n entirety or joint tenant is exempt from process\n under applicable nonbankruptcy law.\n11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(3)(B). We must determine to what extent\ncontingent future interests created by Illinois law are exempt\nunder this section. The most natural reading of the statute\nexempts any interest held by an individual as a tenant by the\nentirety to the extent that state law exempts that particular\ninterest. The district court found that any interest held by the\ndebtor is exempt to the extent that state law exempted the\nentirety interest. We reverse the district court and hold that the\ndebtor’s property cannot be excluded from the bankruptcy\nestate.\n I. BACKGROUND\n In 1998, Laverne Williams wanted to file a medical malprac-\ntice lawsuit and hired Scott Jaffe to be her attorney. The statute\nof limitations expired before Jaffe filed a complaint and\nWilliams sued for legal malpractice, obtained a default\njudgment, and recorded that judgment on a property that Jaffe\nand his wife owned as tenants by the entirety. Williams now\nclaims post-judgment interest brings her total claim against\nJaffe to $1.04 million.\n Jaffe filed a chapter 7 bankruptcy petition in November\n2015, which identified his debt to Williams and indicated it\nwas secured by a judgment lien on his residence. On the\npetition date Jaffe and his wife owned the property as tenants\nby the entirety, but before bankruptcy proceedings were\ncomplete Jaffe’s wife died. According to Illinois law, when his\nwife died the tenancy by the entirety terminated and Jaffe held\n\fNo. 18-2726 3\n\nthe property individually in fee simple. To avoid the judgment\nlien Jaffe filed a motion in the bankruptcy court arguing the\nproperty was exempt under 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(3)(B). Williams\nresponded that the property was not exempt because the\nfederal bankruptcy provision that Jaffe relied upon looks to\nstate law to determine whether a tenancy property is exempt.\nBecause Illinois does not exempt contingent future interests,\nWilliams argued, the federal bankruptcy statute does not allow\nJaffe to exempt the property from the bankruptcy estate. On\nappeal the parties renew these arguments.\n II. DISCUSSION\n We must first determine whether a lien exists and what\ninterests it attached to. If no lien exists the debtor cannot seek\nan exemption under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f) and our inquiry is\ncomplete. See In re Chinosorn, 243 B.R. 688, 694 (Bankr. N.D. Ill.\n2000) (noting there are “three elements for lien avoidance: (1) a\nlien must have fixed on an interest of the debtor in property,\n(2) the lien must impair an exemption to which the debtor\nwould have been entitled under § 522(b), and (3) the lien must\nbe a judicial lien—with the debtor bearing the burden of each\nelement.”). If a lien attached we must also determine to what\ninterests it attached. Jaffe argues that, if any lien exists, it\nattached only to his tenancy interest which is exempt under\nIllinois law. Williams asserts her lien attached to Jaffe’s\ncontingent future interest in the property. If we determine a\nlien attached to a property interest we must then determine\nwhether that interest is exempt under § 522(b)(3)(B). We will\naddress each issue in turn.\n\f4 No. 18-2726\n\n A. The Existence of a Lien\n If a judicial lien attaches to property that is entitled to\nexemption from the bankruptcy estate, § 522(f) allows the\ndebtor to avoid the fixing of the lien. See 11 U.S.C. § 522(f).\nIllinois courts have not decided whether a judgment lien\nattaches to the individual interests (in particular contingent\nfuture interests) of a tenant by the entirety. Where a state’s\nhighest court has not ruled on an issue, we must apply the law\nin a manner we believe the state supreme court would, if\npresented with the issue. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Statewide\nIns. Co., 352 F.3d 1098, 1100 (7th Cir. 2003).\n To answer this question we turn to the applicable Illinois\nstatutes, which have long controlled the attachment of judg-\nment liens. Lehman v. Cottrell, 19 N.E.2d 111, 114 (2d Dist. 1939)\n(“At common law, land was subject neither to execution nor to\nthe lien of a judgment. Both these results are purely statu-\ntory.”). Section 12–101 of the Illinois code creates judgment\nliens and controls their ability to attach to certain property\ninterests. The statute dictates that judgment liens may attach to\nall “real estate” and defines “real estate” broadly to include all\n“lands, tenements, hereditaments, and all legal and equitable\nrights therein.” 735 ILCS 5/12–105.\n The Illinois legislature enumerated the precise interests\ntenants by the entirety enjoy individually, including the\nfollowing contingent future interests: “(a) an interest as a\ntenant in common in the event of a divorce, (b) an interest as a\njoint tenant in the event that another homestead is established,\nand (c) a survivorship interest in the entire property in the\nevent of the other tenant’s death.” 765 ILCS 1005/1c. These\n\fNo. 18-2726 5\n\ncontingent future interests fall within the statute’s broad\ndefinition of “real estate.” Therefore, a judgment lien attaches\nto these individual interests, absent some exception. See In re\nTolson, 338 B.R. 359, 369 (C.D. Ill. 2005). The only exception that\n12-101 identifies is section 12-901—the homestead exception.\nSee 735 ILCS 5/12-901 (the “homestead and all rights in and\ntitle to that homestead is exempt from attachment, judgment,\nlevy or judgment sale for the payment of his or her debts or\nother purposes … .”).\n Otherwise, “where the Illinois legislature has determined\nthat a judgment lien should not be created as to a debtor’s\ninterest in particular property, it has provided that\nthe property is ‘exempt from judgment,’ see 735 ILCS 5/12-1001\n(specified personal property), or that it is not ‘subject to any\nlien,’ see 820 ILCS 305/21 (workers’ compensation award).”\nChinosorn, 243 B.R. at 695–95. But Illinois does not “exempt\nfrom judgment” interests held in tenancy by the entirety or\ncontingent future interests held by tenants by the entirety.\nIllinois law merely exempts the tenancy interest from the\nattachment of a judgment lien. 735 ILCS 5/12-112. Section 12-\n112 provides that judgment liens may attach to all “lands,\ntenements, goods and chattels.” It then carves out a narrow\nexception, the tenancy interest, without mentioning the\ncontingent future interests explicitly created by the Illinois\nlegislature.\n It is clear that if the Illinois legislature wanted to exempt\nparticular interests from the attachment of judgment liens, it\nhad no problem in doing so. Because the Illinois legislature\nfailed to do so, we find that Williams’s judgment lien attached\nto Jaffe’s contingent future interest in the property. See Yotis,\n\f6 No. 18-2726\n\n518 B.R. at 486–90; Tolson, 338 B.R. at 367 (holding that “the\ncontingent right of survivorship of each entireties tenant is a\npresent property right to which a judgment lien extends.”).\n B. Exemption Under § 522(b)(3)(B)\n Tenancy by the entirety is a form of property ownership\nthat arose out of common law and developed as part of the\nEnglish feudal system. Oval A. Phipps, Tenancy by the Entire-\nties, 25 Temp. L.Q. 24 (1951). Until the nineteenth century,\nmarried women in the United States were subject to coverture.\nThis meant a wife’s legal identity and property were absorbed\nby her husband and he was granted legal dominion over\neverything. Id. Therefore, if a married couple purchased\nproperty, it could not be owned by the husband and wife\nbecause both spouses were considered a single legal entity (the\nhusband). Id. Tenancy by the entirety was created so spouses\ncould own property jointly and upon the death of one spouse\nthe property would belong to the surviving spouse. Then,\n“during the middle and latter part of the nineteenth century,\nas part of a reform movement aimed at emancipating married\nwomen from their state of social and economic dependency,\nthe Married Women’s Property Acts were enacted practically\nuniversally by the legislatures of the several states.” Id.\n Following the passage of the Married Women’s Property\nActs, states splintered in their approach to tenancy by the\nentirety. Many state courts thought the acts destroyed tenancy\nby the entirety and a few courts held they were unaffected;\nseveral state courts gave both spouses the rights of the hus-\nband under common law and a large number of states found\nboth spouses had only the limited interests a wife previously\n\fNo. 18-2726 7\n\nhad under common law. Chinosorn, 243 B.R. at 692–93 (collect-\ning cases). States also divided over whether tenancy by the\nentirety encompassed real property and personal property, or\njust real property. Id. at 693. The Illinois judiciary found that\nthe state’s Married Women’s Act abolished tenancy by the\nentirety but, in 1990, the legislature codified tenancy by the\nentirety for real estate owned by spouses who were using the\nproperty as their homestead. 765 ILCS 1005/1c.\n Jurisdictions that recognize tenancy by the entirety,\nhowever, are not uniform in their approach to creditors’ rights\nagainst the estate:\n A creditor’s right to levy on a married person’s\n property is complex, and varies by state and the\n type of debt and property. Every state allows\n satisfaction of a debt which has been jointly\n incurred by a husband and wife against jointly\n held property, even if that property is held in a\n tenancy by the entirety … . Some states allow\n the satisfaction of an individual spouse’s debt\n against entireties property, but most do not.\nCreditors’ Rights Against Entireties Property In and Out of\nBankruptcy, 1983 Ann. Surv. of Bankr. Law Part II (September\n1983). With this kaleidoscopic background in mind, we turn\nto the bankruptcy aspect of this case.\n A debtor’s bankruptcy estate must include “all legal or\nequitable interests of the debtor in property as of the com-\nmencement of the case.” 11 U.S.C. § 541(a). This includes an\nindividual debtor’s interest in property held as a tenant by the\nentirety. In re Hunter, 970 F.2d 299, 303 (7th Cir. 1992); Napotnik\n\f8 No. 18-2726\n\nv. Equibank & Parkvale Savings Association, 679 F.2d 316 (3d Cir.\n1982). All property in the estate is liquidated by the bankruptcy\ntrustee and the proceeds are distributed to creditors based on\ntheir priority. 11 U.S.C. § 704. But the Bankruptcy Code allows\ndebtors to exempt certain estate property. Exempt property is\nremoved from the estate and retained by the debtor.\nSection 522(b)(3)(B) exempts:\n [a]ny interest in property in which the debtor\n had, immediately before the commencement of\n the case, an interest as a tenant by the entirety or\n joint tenant to the extent that such interest as a\n tenant by the entirety or joint tenant is exempt\n from process under applicable nonbankruptcy\n law.\nThe law of co-tenancies is almost exclusively a matter of state\nlaw since there is no general federal property law, therefore,\nthe “applicable nonbankruptcy law” is Illinois law. The\nquestion here is to what extent § 522(b)(3)(B) exempts Jaffe’s\ncontingent future interest in the tenancy property. There is no\ndispute that a lien that attached to Jaffe’s tenancy interest would\nbe exempt. However, the nub of this case lies in the exemption\nof the lesser interests that are not exempted under Illinois law.\n The district court interpreted § 522(b)(3)(B) to exempt\nJaffe’s contingent future interest in the entireties property,\ndespite the fact that Illinois provides no exemption for these\ninterests. In reaching this conclusion the district court parti-\ntioned the statutory language into four elements:\n § 522(b)(3)(B) exempts: (i) any interest in prop-\n erty; (ii) in which the debtor had an interest as a\n\fNo. 18-2726 9\n\n tenant in the entirety; (iii) at the time the bank-\n ruptcy petition was filed; (iv) to the extent that\n state law exempts an interest as tenant in the\n entirety from legal process.\nJaffe v. Williams, No. 1:17-cv-4662, slip op. at *4 (N.D. Ill.\nMay 22, 2018). The district court noted that Jaffe had an interest\nas a tenant by the entirety (as well as contingent future\ninterests) at the time the bankruptcy petition was filed (satisfy-\ning the first three elements). The district court then concluded\nthat any interest he held (contingent future interests included)\nwas exempt to the extent that the tenancy interest was exempt\nunder Illinois law. And since Illinois exempts the tenancy\ninterest, more specifically the forced sale of the tenancy\nproperty to collect a debt against just one tenant, all other\ninterests Jaffe had as a tenancy by the entirety were exempt\ncompletely.\n But the fourth element of the district court’s analysis left\nout a key word—“such.” Section 522(b)(3)(B) exempts certain\ninterests “to the extent that such interest as a tenant by the\nentirety” is exempt under state law. By not giving sufficient\nweight to the word “such,” the district court interpreted the\nstatute to mean that any property interest is exempt to the\nextent that the entirety interest is exempt. But identifying what\n“such” refers to is the main interpretive issue in this case. If\n“such” refers just to “any interest,” as Jaffe argues, the district\ncourt’s conclusion is correct because the statute would exempt\n“any interest” the debtor had to the extent that any tenancy\ninterest is exempt from state law. However, if “such interest”\nrefers to something more limited, like the precise interests the\n\f10 No. 18-2726\n\ndebtor was seeking to exempt, the district court’s interpreta-\ntion is incorrect.\n Section 522(b)(3)(B) begins broadly by stating it exempts\n“any interest in property.” The provision goes on to state that\nthe debtor must have an interest in the property “as a tenant by\nthe entirety” in order to claim an exemption, thus cabining “any\ninterest in property.” This means that if, for example, a tenant\nby the entirety transferred her interest in the income the\nproperty generated, the transferee could not claim an exemp-\ntion under § 522(b)(3)(B) since she does not hold the interest as\na tenant by the entirety. The provision goes on to state that the\nexemption applies “to the extent that such interests as a tenant\nby the entirety,” meaning the precise interests that the debtor\nholds as a tenant by the entirety, are exempt under state law.\n We read this provision to establish two things. First, the\nopening language indicates the interests that may qualify for\nexemptions—any interest the debtor has, so long as she holds\nthat interest as a tenant by the entirety. The provision then\ndefines which of those qualifying interests are exempt—all of\nthe debtor’s qualifying interests to the extent that they are\nexempt under applicable nonbankruptcy law. Our reading of\nthe statute yields a simple result—interests a debtor holds as\na tenant by the entirety are exempt to the extent that those\ninterests the debtor holds as a tenant by the entirety are exempt\nunder state law.\n The statutory language does not support the argument that\n“such interest as a tenant by the entirety” is referring more\nbroadly to “any interest in property” as Jaffe argues. It is much\nmore sensible to read “such interest” as referring to the\n\fNo. 18-2726 11\n\ncomplete introductory phrase, which identifies the debtor’s\nspecific interests that potentially qualify for an exemption.\nAdditionally, the signifier (“such interest”) and referent\n(“interest as a tenant by the entirety”) use mirroring language\nindicating that the latter is referring to the former: “property in\nwhich the debtor had … an interest as a tenant by the entirety …\nto the extent that such interest as a tenant by the entirety” is\nexempt. This buttresses the conclusion that “such interest” was\nmeant to refer to the specific interests that the debtor held as a\ntenant by the entirety, rather than only referring to “any\ninterest.”\n Given the variety of rights, interests, and exemptions in\ntenancy by the entirety, it is likely that Congress enacted\n§ 522(b)(3)(B) to reflect the full spectrum of different ap-\nproaches states have taken. See Chinosorn, 243 B.R. at 700 (“the\napparent intent of the provision is to provide, in bankruptcy,\na level of protection from claims of creditors identical to the\nprotection that owners of entireties property would have in\ncollection proceedings outside of bankruptcy, under applicable\nstate law.”). “Any interest in property in which the debtor\nhad … an interest” is broad, inclusive language that signals\nthat all state exemptions for tenants by the entirety will be\nhonored in federal bankruptcy court. But the district court’s\nreading would mean that no matter how nuanced state\nexemptions for tenants by the entirety are, all interests would\nbe exempt if the state exempts the entirety interest. This means\nthat if Illinois decided to explicitly exempt the contingent\nfuture interests that Williams’s lien attached to, such an\nexemption would be given no effect by a bankruptcy statute\n\f12 No. 18-2726\n\nthat relies on state law. This interpretation leads to an absurd\nresult and could not be what Congress intended.\n Additionally, our reading of the statute is in line with each\nof our sister circuits that have considered the issue. While it\ndoes not appear that those cases involved arguments by the\nparties that required similar exegesis of the statutory text, the\nfact that the no party argued otherwise implies that the statute\nis naturally read as we read it today. See e.g., In re Arango, 992\nF.2d 611, 613 (6th Cir. 1993) (“[W]e must first look to Tennessee\nlaw to classify Arango’s interests in entireties property. We\nthen determine which of those interest is exempt from his\nbankruptcy estate by determining whether each particular\ninterest is subject to execution under Tennessee law” (emphasis\nadded)); Ragsdale v. Genesco, Inc., 674 F.2d 277, 239 (4th Cir.\n1982) (“The phrase ‘to the extent such interest … is exempt\nfrom process under applicable nonbankruptcy law’ is of\ndecisive importance. If the Ragsdales’ residential real property\ncould be reached to satisfy a state court judgment in Virginia,\nit could not be successfully claimed as exempt”); Napotnik v.\nEquibank & Parkvale Sav. Ass’n, 679 F.2d 316 , 322–23 (3d Cir.\n1982) (“Since the debtor’s interest in the real property owned\nwith his wife as tenants by the entirety is not exempt from\nprocess in Pennsylvania because they are joint obligors, he is\nnot entitled to exempt that portion of his equity subject to\nEquibank’s judicial lien, and cannot avoid that lien under\nSection 522(f)”).\n Here, Williams obtained a judgment lien on Jaffe’s contin-\ngent future interest that existed when Jaffe filed his bankruptcy\npetition. The first determination that must be made is whether\nJaffe’s interest is the kind that potentially qualifies for an\n\fNo. 18-2726 13\n\nexemption under § 522(b)(3)(B). Any interest can qualify so\nlong as it is an interest one holds “as a tenant by the entirety.”\nJaffe held his interest as a tenant by the entirety so we must\ndetermine whether the interest is exempt. This requires looking\nto Illinois law to determine whether contingent future interests\nare exempt from process.\n The main protection that Illinois law provides tenants by\nthe entirety is that a creditor is unable to force the sale of the\nproperty to collect a debt against only one of the tenants. 735\nILCS 5/12-112 (2014). Illinois law does not make all interests\nheld by tenants by the entirety immune from process and we\nneed not look hard for a state that does—Indiana law exempts\n“any interest the judgment has in real estate as a tenant by the\nentireties.” Ind. Code § 34-2-28-1(a)(5); In re Paeplow, 972 F.2d\n730, 737 (7th Cir. 1992). Illinois law explicitly refuses to exempt\nincome from entirety properties and fails to provide an\nexemption for the contingent future interests. 765 ILCS 1005/1c;\nsee also Yotis, 518 B.R. at 489–90 (holding that “any future\ninterest that may be held by either tenant alone, such as the\ncontingent future interest, is not exempt at all”). Accordingly,\nwe find that Jaffe is not entitled to an exemption of his contin-\ngent future interest. The district court’s conclusion otherwise\nwas erroneous.\n III. CONCLUSION\n Because the statute exempts an individual’s tenancy\ninterest to the extent that state law exempts that interest, we\nreverse the decision of the district court and remand for further\nproceedings consistent with this opinion.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Laverne Williams v. Scott Jaffe\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-08-05\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\nNo. 18-2726\\n\\nIN RE: SCOTT N. JAFFE,\\n Debtor-Appellee,\\nAPPEAL OF: LAVERNE WILLIAMS.\\n\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 17 C 04662 — John J. Tharp, Jr., Judge.\\n\\n\\n\\n ARGUED FEBRUARY 7, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 5, 2019\\n\\n\\n Before BAUER, HAMILTON, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\\n BAUER, Circuit Judge. Section 522(b)(1) of the United States\\nBankruptcy Code states that a “debtor may exempt from\\nproperty of the [bankruptcy] estate the property listed in either\\nparagraph (2) or, in the alternative paragraph (3).” At issue in\\nthis case is paragraph (3) subsection (B), which states, in full,\\nthat:\\n Property listed in this paragraph is any interest\\n in property which the debtor had, immediately\\n before the commencement of the case, an inter-\\n est as a tenant by the entirety or joint tenant to\\n\\f2 No. 18-2726\\n\\n the extent that such interest as a tenant by the\\n entirety or joint tenant is exempt from process\\n under applicable nonbankruptcy law.\\n11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(3)(B). We must determine to what extent\\ncontingent future interests created by Illinois law are exempt\\nunder this section. The most natural reading of the statute\\nexempts any interest held by an individual as a tenant by the\\nentirety to the extent that state law exempts that particular\\ninterest. The district court found that any interest held by the\\ndebtor is exempt to the extent that state law exempted the\\nentirety interest. We reverse the district court and hold that the\\ndebtor’s property cannot be excluded from the bankruptcy\\nestate.\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n In 1998, Laverne Williams wanted to file a medical malprac-\\ntice lawsuit and hired Scott Jaffe to be her attorney. The statute\\nof limitations expired before Jaffe filed a complaint and\\nWilliams sued for legal malpractice, obtained a default\\njudgment, and recorded that judgment on a property that Jaffe\\nand his wife owned as tenants by the entirety. Williams now\\nclaims post-judgment interest brings her total claim against\\nJaffe to $1.04 million.\\n Jaffe filed a chapter 7 bankruptcy petition in November\\n2015, which identified his debt to Williams and indicated it\\nwas secured by a judgment lien on his residence. On the\\npetition date Jaffe and his wife owned the property as tenants\\nby the entirety, but before bankruptcy proceedings were\\ncomplete Jaffe’s wife died. According to Illinois law, when his\\nwife died the tenancy by the entirety terminated and Jaffe held\\n\\fNo. 18-2726 3\\n\\nthe property individually in fee simple. To avoid the judgment\\nlien Jaffe filed a motion in the bankruptcy court arguing the\\nproperty was exempt under 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(3)(B). Williams\\nresponded that the property was not exempt because the\\nfederal bankruptcy provision that Jaffe relied upon looks to\\nstate law to determine whether a tenancy property is exempt.\\nBecause Illinois does not exempt contingent future interests,\\nWilliams argued, the federal bankruptcy statute does not allow\\nJaffe to exempt the property from the bankruptcy estate. On\\nappeal the parties renew these arguments.\\n II. DISCUSSION\\n We must first determine whether a lien exists and what\\ninterests it attached to. If no lien exists the debtor cannot seek\\nan exemption under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f) and our inquiry is\\ncomplete. See In re Chinosorn, 243 B.R. 688, 694 (Bankr. N.D. Ill.\\n2000) (noting there are “three elements for lien avoidance: (1) a\\nlien must have fixed on an interest of the debtor in property,\\n(2) the lien must impair an exemption to which the debtor\\nwould have been entitled under § 522(b), and (3) the lien must\\nbe a judicial lien—with the debtor bearing the burden of each\\nelement.”). If a lien attached we must also determine to what\\ninterests it attached. Jaffe argues that, if any lien exists, it\\nattached only to his tenancy interest which is exempt under\\nIllinois law. Williams asserts her lien attached to Jaffe’s\\ncontingent future interest in the property. If we determine a\\nlien attached to a property interest we must then determine\\nwhether that interest is exempt under § 522(b)(3)(B). We will\\naddress each issue in turn.\\n\\f4 No. 18-2726\\n\\n A. The Existence of a Lien\\n If a judicial lien attaches to property that is entitled to\\nexemption from the bankruptcy estate, § 522(f) allows the\\ndebtor to avoid the fixing of the lien. See 11 U.S.C. § 522(f).\\nIllinois courts have not decided whether a judgment lien\\nattaches to the individual interests (in particular contingent\\nfuture interests) of a tenant by the entirety. Where a state’s\\nhighest court has not ruled on an issue, we must apply the law\\nin a manner we believe the state supreme court would, if\\npresented with the issue. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Statewide\\nIns. Co., 352 F.3d 1098, 1100 (7th Cir. 2003).\\n To answer this question we turn to the applicable Illinois\\nstatutes, which have long controlled the attachment of judg-\\nment liens. Lehman v. Cottrell, 19 N.E.2d 111, 114 (2d Dist. 1939)\\n(“At common law, land was subject neither to execution nor to\\nthe lien of a judgment. Both these results are purely statu-\\ntory.”). Section 12–101 of the Illinois code creates judgment\\nliens and controls their ability to attach to certain property\\ninterests. The statute dictates that judgment liens may attach to\\nall “real estate” and defines “real estate” broadly to include all\\n“lands, tenements, hereditaments, and all legal and equitable\\nrights therein.” 735 ILCS 5/12–105.\\n The Illinois legislature enumerated the precise interests\\ntenants by the entirety enjoy individually, including the\\nfollowing contingent future interests: “(a) an interest as a\\ntenant in common in the event of a divorce, (b) an interest as a\\njoint tenant in the event that another homestead is established,\\nand (c) a survivorship interest in the entire property in the\\nevent of the other tenant’s death.” 765 ILCS 1005/1c. These\\n\\fNo. 18-2726 5\\n\\ncontingent future interests fall within the statute’s broad\\ndefinition of “real estate.” Therefore, a judgment lien attaches\\nto these individual interests, absent some exception. See In re\\nTolson, 338 B.R. 359, 369 (C.D. Ill. 2005). The only exception that\\n12-101 identifies is section 12-901—the homestead exception.\\nSee 735 ILCS 5/12-901 (the “homestead and all rights in and\\ntitle to that homestead is exempt from attachment, judgment,\\nlevy or judgment sale for the payment of his or her debts or\\nother purposes … .”).\\n Otherwise, “where the Illinois legislature has determined\\nthat a judgment lien should not be created as to a debtor’s\\ninterest in particular property, it has provided that\\nthe property is ‘exempt from judgment,’ see 735 ILCS 5/12-1001\\n(specified personal property), or that it is not ‘subject to any\\nlien,’ see 820 ILCS 305/21 (workers’ compensation award).”\\nChinosorn, 243 B.R. at 695–95. But Illinois does not “exempt\\nfrom judgment” interests held in tenancy by the entirety or\\ncontingent future interests held by tenants by the entirety.\\nIllinois law merely exempts the tenancy interest from the\\nattachment of a judgment lien. 735 ILCS 5/12-112. Section 12-\\n112 provides that judgment liens may attach to all “lands,\\ntenements, goods and chattels.” It then carves out a narrow\\nexception, the tenancy interest, without mentioning the\\ncontingent future interests explicitly created by the Illinois\\nlegislature.\\n It is clear that if the Illinois legislature wanted to exempt\\nparticular interests from the attachment of judgment liens, it\\nhad no problem in doing so. Because the Illinois legislature\\nfailed to do so, we find that Williams’s judgment lien attached\\nto Jaffe’s contingent future interest in the property. See Yotis,\\n\\f6 No. 18-2726\\n\\n518 B.R. at 486–90; Tolson, 338 B.R. at 367 (holding that “the\\ncontingent right of survivorship of each entireties tenant is a\\npresent property right to which a judgment lien extends.”).\\n B. Exemption Under § 522(b)(3)(B)\\n Tenancy by the entirety is a form of property ownership\\nthat arose out of common law and developed as part of the\\nEnglish feudal system. Oval A. Phipps, Tenancy by the Entire-\\nties, 25 Temp. L.Q. 24 (1951). Until the nineteenth century,\\nmarried women in the United States were subject to coverture.\\nThis meant a wife’s legal identity and property were absorbed\\nby her husband and he was granted legal dominion over\\neverything. Id. Therefore, if a married couple purchased\\nproperty, it could not be owned by the husband and wife\\nbecause both spouses were considered a single legal entity (the\\nhusband). Id. Tenancy by the entirety was created so spouses\\ncould own property jointly and upon the death of one spouse\\nthe property would belong to the surviving spouse. Then,\\n“during the middle and latter part of the nineteenth century,\\nas part of a reform movement aimed at emancipating married\\nwomen from their state of social and economic dependency,\\nthe Married Women’s Property Acts were enacted practically\\nuniversally by the legislatures of the several states.” Id.\\n Following the passage of the Married Women’s Property\\nActs, states splintered in their approach to tenancy by the\\nentirety. Many state courts thought the acts destroyed tenancy\\nby the entirety and a few courts held they were unaffected;\\nseveral state courts gave both spouses the rights of the hus-\\nband under common law and a large number of states found\\nboth spouses had only the limited interests a wife previously\\n\\fNo. 18-2726 7\\n\\nhad under common law. Chinosorn, 243 B.R. at 692–93 (collect-\\ning cases). States also divided over whether tenancy by the\\nentirety encompassed real property and personal property, or\\njust real property. Id. at 693. The Illinois judiciary found that\\nthe state’s Married Women’s Act abolished tenancy by the\\nentirety but, in 1990, the legislature codified tenancy by the\\nentirety for real estate owned by spouses who were using the\\nproperty as their homestead. 765 ILCS 1005/1c.\\n Jurisdictions that recognize tenancy by the entirety,\\nhowever, are not uniform in their approach to creditors’ rights\\nagainst the estate:\\n A creditor’s right to levy on a married person’s\\n property is complex, and varies by state and the\\n type of debt and property. Every state allows\\n satisfaction of a debt which has been jointly\\n incurred by a husband and wife against jointly\\n held property, even if that property is held in a\\n tenancy by the entirety … . Some states allow\\n the satisfaction of an individual spouse’s debt\\n against entireties property, but most do not.\\nCreditors’ Rights Against Entireties Property In and Out of\\nBankruptcy, 1983 Ann. Surv. of Bankr. Law Part II (September\\n1983). With this kaleidoscopic background in mind, we turn\\nto the bankruptcy aspect of this case.\\n A debtor’s bankruptcy estate must include “all legal or\\nequitable interests of the debtor in property as of the com-\\nmencement of the case.” 11 U.S.C. § 541(a). This includes an\\nindividual debtor’s interest in property held as a tenant by the\\nentirety. In re Hunter, 970 F.2d 299, 303 (7th Cir. 1992); Napotnik\\n\\f8 No. 18-2726\\n\\nv. Equibank & Parkvale Savings Association, 679 F.2d 316 (3d Cir.\\n1982). All property in the estate is liquidated by the bankruptcy\\ntrustee and the proceeds are distributed to creditors based on\\ntheir priority. 11 U.S.C. § 704. But the Bankruptcy Code allows\\ndebtors to exempt certain estate property. Exempt property is\\nremoved from the estate and retained by the debtor.\\nSection 522(b)(3)(B) exempts:\\n [a]ny interest in property in which the debtor\\n had, immediately before the commencement of\\n the case, an interest as a tenant by the entirety or\\n joint tenant to the extent that such interest as a\\n tenant by the entirety or joint tenant is exempt\\n from process under applicable nonbankruptcy\\n law.\\nThe law of co-tenancies is almost exclusively a matter of state\\nlaw since there is no general federal property law, therefore,\\nthe “applicable nonbankruptcy law” is Illinois law. The\\nquestion here is to what extent § 522(b)(3)(B) exempts Jaffe’s\\ncontingent future interest in the tenancy property. There is no\\ndispute that a lien that attached to Jaffe’s tenancy interest would\\nbe exempt. However, the nub of this case lies in the exemption\\nof the lesser interests that are not exempted under Illinois law.\\n The district court interpreted § 522(b)(3)(B) to exempt\\nJaffe’s contingent future interest in the entireties property,\\ndespite the fact that Illinois provides no exemption for these\\ninterests. In reaching this conclusion the district court parti-\\ntioned the statutory language into four elements:\\n § 522(b)(3)(B) exempts: (i) any interest in prop-\\n erty; (ii) in which the debtor had an interest as a\\n\\fNo. 18-2726 9\\n\\n tenant in the entirety; (iii) at the time the bank-\\n ruptcy petition was filed; (iv) to the extent that\\n state law exempts an interest as tenant in the\\n entirety from legal process.\\nJaffe v. Williams, No. 1:17-cv-4662, slip op. at *4 (N.D. Ill.\\nMay 22, 2018). The district court noted that Jaffe had an interest\\nas a tenant by the entirety (as well as contingent future\\ninterests) at the time the bankruptcy petition was filed (satisfy-\\ning the first three elements). The district court then concluded\\nthat any interest he held (contingent future interests included)\\nwas exempt to the extent that the tenancy interest was exempt\\nunder Illinois law. And since Illinois exempts the tenancy\\ninterest, more specifically the forced sale of the tenancy\\nproperty to collect a debt against just one tenant, all other\\ninterests Jaffe had as a tenancy by the entirety were exempt\\ncompletely.\\n But the fourth element of the district court’s analysis left\\nout a key word—“such.” Section 522(b)(3)(B) exempts certain\\ninterests “to the extent that such interest as a tenant by the\\nentirety” is exempt under state law. By not giving sufficient\\nweight to the word “such,” the district court interpreted the\\nstatute to mean that any property interest is exempt to the\\nextent that the entirety interest is exempt. But identifying what\\n“such” refers to is the main interpretive issue in this case. If\\n“such” refers just to “any interest,” as Jaffe argues, the district\\ncourt’s conclusion is correct because the statute would exempt\\n“any interest” the debtor had to the extent that any tenancy\\ninterest is exempt from state law. However, if “such interest”\\nrefers to something more limited, like the precise interests the\\n\\f10 No. 18-2726\\n\\ndebtor was seeking to exempt, the district court’s interpreta-\\ntion is incorrect.\\n Section 522(b)(3)(B) begins broadly by stating it exempts\\n“any interest in property.” The provision goes on to state that\\nthe debtor must have an interest in the property “as a tenant by\\nthe entirety” in order to claim an exemption, thus cabining “any\\ninterest in property.” This means that if, for example, a tenant\\nby the entirety transferred her interest in the income the\\nproperty generated, the transferee could not claim an exemp-\\ntion under § 522(b)(3)(B) since she does not hold the interest as\\na tenant by the entirety. The provision goes on to state that the\\nexemption applies “to the extent that such interests as a tenant\\nby the entirety,” meaning the precise interests that the debtor\\nholds as a tenant by the entirety, are exempt under state law.\\n We read this provision to establish two things. First, the\\nopening language indicates the interests that may qualify for\\nexemptions—any interest the debtor has, so long as she holds\\nthat interest as a tenant by the entirety. The provision then\\ndefines which of those qualifying interests are exempt—all of\\nthe debtor’s qualifying interests to the extent that they are\\nexempt under applicable nonbankruptcy law. Our reading of\\nthe statute yields a simple result—interests a debtor holds as\\na tenant by the entirety are exempt to the extent that those\\ninterests the debtor holds as a tenant by the entirety are exempt\\nunder state law.\\n The statutory language does not support the argument that\\n“such interest as a tenant by the entirety” is referring more\\nbroadly to “any interest in property” as Jaffe argues. It is much\\nmore sensible to read “such interest” as referring to the\\n\\fNo. 18-2726 11\\n\\ncomplete introductory phrase, which identifies the debtor’s\\nspecific interests that potentially qualify for an exemption.\\nAdditionally, the signifier (“such interest”) and referent\\n(“interest as a tenant by the entirety”) use mirroring language\\nindicating that the latter is referring to the former: “property in\\nwhich the debtor had … an interest as a tenant by the entirety …\\nto the extent that such interest as a tenant by the entirety” is\\nexempt. This buttresses the conclusion that “such interest” was\\nmeant to refer to the specific interests that the debtor held as a\\ntenant by the entirety, rather than only referring to “any\\ninterest.”\\n Given the variety of rights, interests, and exemptions in\\ntenancy by the entirety, it is likely that Congress enacted\\n§ 522(b)(3)(B) to reflect the full spectrum of different ap-\\nproaches states have taken. See Chinosorn, 243 B.R. at 700 (“the\\napparent intent of the provision is to provide, in bankruptcy,\\na level of protection from claims of creditors identical to the\\nprotection that owners of entireties property would have in\\ncollection proceedings outside of bankruptcy, under applicable\\nstate law.”). “Any interest in property in which the debtor\\nhad … an interest” is broad, inclusive language that signals\\nthat all state exemptions for tenants by the entirety will be\\nhonored in federal bankruptcy court. But the district court’s\\nreading would mean that no matter how nuanced state\\nexemptions for tenants by the entirety are, all interests would\\nbe exempt if the state exempts the entirety interest. This means\\nthat if Illinois decided to explicitly exempt the contingent\\nfuture interests that Williams’s lien attached to, such an\\nexemption would be given no effect by a bankruptcy statute\\n\\f12 No. 18-2726\\n\\nthat relies on state law. This interpretation leads to an absurd\\nresult and could not be what Congress intended.\\n Additionally, our reading of the statute is in line with each\\nof our sister circuits that have considered the issue. While it\\ndoes not appear that those cases involved arguments by the\\nparties that required similar exegesis of the statutory text, the\\nfact that the no party argued otherwise implies that the statute\\nis naturally read as we read it today. See e.g., In re Arango, 992\\nF.2d 611, 613 (6th Cir. 1993) (“[W]e must first look to Tennessee\\nlaw to classify Arango’s interests in entireties property. We\\nthen determine which of those interest is exempt from his\\nbankruptcy estate by determining whether each particular\\ninterest is subject to execution under Tennessee law” (emphasis\\nadded)); Ragsdale v. Genesco, Inc., 674 F.2d 277, 239 (4th Cir.\\n1982) (“The phrase ‘to the extent such interest … is exempt\\nfrom process under applicable nonbankruptcy law’ is of\\ndecisive importance. If the Ragsdales’ residential real property\\ncould be reached to satisfy a state court judgment in Virginia,\\nit could not be successfully claimed as exempt”); Napotnik v.\\nEquibank & Parkvale Sav. Ass’n, 679 F.2d 316 , 322–23 (3d Cir.\\n1982) (“Since the debtor’s interest in the real property owned\\nwith his wife as tenants by the entirety is not exempt from\\nprocess in Pennsylvania because they are joint obligors, he is\\nnot entitled to exempt that portion of his equity subject to\\nEquibank’s judicial lien, and cannot avoid that lien under\\nSection 522(f)”).\\n Here, Williams obtained a judgment lien on Jaffe’s contin-\\ngent future interest that existed when Jaffe filed his bankruptcy\\npetition. The first determination that must be made is whether\\nJaffe’s interest is the kind that potentially qualifies for an\\n\\fNo. 18-2726 13\\n\\nexemption under § 522(b)(3)(B). Any interest can qualify so\\nlong as it is an interest one holds “as a tenant by the entirety.”\\nJaffe held his interest as a tenant by the entirety so we must\\ndetermine whether the interest is exempt. This requires looking\\nto Illinois law to determine whether contingent future interests\\nare exempt from process.\\n The main protection that Illinois law provides tenants by\\nthe entirety is that a creditor is unable to force the sale of the\\nproperty to collect a debt against only one of the tenants. 735\\nILCS 5/12-112 (2014). Illinois law does not make all interests\\nheld by tenants by the entirety immune from process and we\\nneed not look hard for a state that does—Indiana law exempts\\n“any interest the judgment has in real estate as a tenant by the\\nentireties.” Ind. Code § 34-2-28-1(a)(5); In re Paeplow, 972 F.2d\\n730, 737 (7th Cir. 1992). Illinois law explicitly refuses to exempt\\nincome from entirety properties and fails to provide an\\nexemption for the contingent future interests. 765 ILCS 1005/1c;\\nsee also Yotis, 518 B.R. at 489–90 (holding that “any future\\ninterest that may be held by either tenant alone, such as the\\ncontingent future interest, is not exempt at all”). Accordingly,\\nwe find that Jaffe is not entitled to an exemption of his contin-\\ngent future interest. The district court’s conclusion otherwise\\nwas erroneous.\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n Because the statute exempts an individual’s tenancy\\ninterest to the extent that state law exempts that interest, we\\nreverse the decision of the district court and remand for further\\nproceedings consistent with this opinion.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3785,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4645613,"string":"4,645,613"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Otis HUNTER and Deshawn Evans, Defendants-Appellants."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"United States v. Otis Hunter"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-08-05"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-2013 & 18-2044"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Flaum, Kanne, Scudder\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"Michael Stephen Kanne\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044\\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\\n Plaintiff‐Appellee,\\n v.\\n\\nOTIS HUNTER and\\nDESHAWN EVANS,\\n Defendants‐Appellants.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeals from the United States District Court for the\\n Eastern District of Wisconsin.\\n Nos. 17‐CR‐29‐2 and 17‐CR‐29‐4 — J.P. Stadtmueller, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED APRIL 5, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 5, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before FLAUM, KANNE, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.\\n KANNE, Circuit Judge. Police arrested five men involved in\\na string of Milwaukee armed robberies in late 2016. Three of\\nthe defendants cooperated with the government and pled\\nguilty. The two remaining defendants, Otis Hunter and\\nDeshawn Evans, proceeded to trial where a jury convicted\\nthem. Through counsel, the pair challenges the district court’s\\nhandling of jury selection and denial of their Batson challenge.\\n\\f2 Nos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044\\n\\nThey also challenge our circuit precedent and argue that the\\ndistrict court violated the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation\\nClause when it prevented them from cross‐examining gov‐\\nernment witnesses about the specific prison terms they\\navoided through their cooperation. After obtaining authori‐\\nzation from the court, Hunter made additional, pro se argu‐\\nments challenging how the trial court handled witness testi‐\\nmony and whether the government provided sufficient evi‐\\ndence to support his conviction. All challenges are rejected\\nand we affirm.\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n Authorities arrested five men in connection with a series\\nof crimes in late 2016: Dominique Rollins, Otis Hunter, Kelly\\nScott, Deshawn Evans, and Anthony Lindsey. Rollins, Scott,\\nand Lindsey pled guilty and testified for the government, but\\nHunter and Evans proceeded to trial.\\n The government connected the defendants to the follow‐\\ning crimes. First, on November 17, 2016, Hunter, Rollins, and\\nScott committed an armed robbery of a Roman’s Food Market.\\nThey held up an employee, made him open the cash register,\\nstruck him on the head with a pistol, and then took the money\\nand a large quantity of Newport cigarettes. Surveillance foot‐\\nage captured the robbery. Rollins and Scott testified at trial\\nthat they robbed the store with Hunter. They also narrated the\\nsurveillance footage and identified Hunter and his pistol. At\\nthe time of the robberies, Doris Brown—Lindsey’s mother\\nand Scott’s fiancée—lived at a house on 15th Place where the\\ndefendants regularly congregated. She later testified that she\\nsaw Hunter with many packs of Newport cigarettes. She also\\nviewed the surveillance footage and identified the robbers.\\n\\fNos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044 3\\n\\n Three days later, on November 20, two men committed an\\narmed carjacking of a food delivery driver outside of Aurora\\nSinai Hospital. The robbers struck the driver on the head with\\na pistol, took his phone, car keys, and wallet, and fled in his\\nblack Cadillac CTS. Surveillance footage captured the rob‐\\nbery. Scott and Lindsey viewed the footage at trial and iden‐\\ntified the pair as Hunter and Evans.\\n Then on November 22, three men with stocking‐covered\\nfaces robbed a George Webb restaurant. Two of the robbers\\nbrandished pistols. They took $70 in cash and some receipts\\nfrom the register and held up employees. The three fled the\\nscene in a black Cadillac. As before, surveillance footage cap‐\\ntured the robbery. Scott and Lindsey confessed to robbing the\\nrestaurant with Hunter and identified Hunter and Scott at\\ntrial as the pair who brandished firearms.\\n A day after the George Webb robbery, on November 23,\\npolice found the black Cadillac CTS parked near the home on\\n15th Place where the defendants met. Inside the car, they\\nfound receipts from the George Webb restaurant and a nylon\\nstocking. DNA recovered from the stocking linked it to de‐\\nfendant Anthony Lindsey.\\n On November 25, two men attempted to rob a Walgreens\\npharmacy at gunpoint. One of the two men brandished a pis‐\\ntol and pointed it at the cashier. When the cashier failed to\\nopen the register, the robber struck him on the head with the\\npistol, knocking him to the ground. The robbers also failed to\\nopen the register. They instead attempted to rob the custom‐\\ners as a consolation but recovered no valuables. Surveillance\\nfootage captured the attempted robbery. Lindsey, Scott, and\\nDoris Brown viewed the footage at trial and identified the rob‐\\n\\f4 Nos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044\\n\\nbers as defendants Hunter and Evans, with Evans brandish‐\\ning the firearm and striking the cashier. Brown also testified\\nthat she overheard Hunter discussing the Walgreen’s robbery\\nat her house.\\n On December 4, two men carjacked the owner of a Ford\\nFocus. They cornered the victim against the side of the car,\\none pressed a firearm into the victim’s stomach, and they\\nrobbed him, taking his credit cards, phone, and wallet before\\nmaking their escape in his vehicle. About 30 minutes after the\\ncarjacking, the robbers used the victim’s credit cards at a Foot\\nLocker store. The Foot Locker’s surveillance footage from the\\ntime of the purchase showed Hunter there, accompanied by a\\nminor. The victim identified the pair as the carjackers through\\nphotographs and later identified Hunter in court as the car‐\\njacker who pressed the pistol into his stomach. Brown, Scott,\\nLindsey, and Rollins each viewed the surveillance footage\\nand identified Hunter.\\n On December 5, the stolen Ford Focus turned up parked\\nbehind the house on 15th Place. Police arrested Evans, the mi‐\\nnor, and Anthony Lindsey in the car. Hunter—on‐the‐run—\\nwas arrested five days later in Ohio. Hunter’s vehicle con‐\\ntained new Foot Locker merchandise and multiple Foot\\nLocker receipts dated December 4, which reflected purchases\\nmade with the credit cards taken during the Ford Focus car‐\\njacking.\\n The grand jury returned an 11‐count indictment against\\nthe five men. Relevant to this appeal, Hunter was charged\\nwith conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371), robbery of the Roman’s\\nFood Market under the Hobbs Act (18 U.S.C. § 1951), carjack‐\\ning the Cadillac (18 U.S.C. § 2119), robbery of the George\\nWebb restaurant under the Hobbs Act, attempted robbery of\\n\\fNos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044 5\\n\\nthe Walgreens under the Hobbs Act, and carjacking the Ford\\nFocus. Hunter was also charged with brandishing a firearm\\nduring each of these crimes in violation of 18 U.S.C.\\n§ 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). Evans faced charges for conspiracy, carjack‐\\ning the Cadillac, and the attempted robbery at Walgreens. He\\nwas also charged with brandishing a firearm during these\\ncrimes.\\n Hunter and Evans—who are both African Americans—\\nproceeded to a jury trial. As a preface to jury selection, the\\ncourt questioned all potential jurors about their experiences\\ntestifying under oath in the judicial system and the courts.\\nHowever, multiple jurors failed to disclose relevant infor‐\\nmation related to this line of questioning. During jury selec‐\\ntion, the government struck several jurors for cause and used\\nits peremptory strikes. The entire jury pool included just three\\npotential African American jurors. The initial voir dire in‐\\ncluded only two. One of these two, Juror 12, was eventually\\nempaneled.\\n The government questioned the other potential African\\nAmerican juror, Juror 7, about an allegedly racially‐charged\\nFacebook post on her profile. The government also learned\\nthat Juror 7’s family had significant contacts with the criminal\\njustice system and she personally had other abject experiences\\nwith the courts. Specifically, Juror 7’s son has been adjudi‐\\ncated delinquent on multiple occasions, and her ex‐husband\\nwas occasionally imprisoned following numerous convic‐\\ntions. During one of her ex‐husband’s arrests, authorities\\nseized her firearm, which she later petitioned a court to re‐\\ncover. Juror 7 had also been through multiple eviction pro‐\\nceedings, a bankruptcy, and received adverse judgments for\\nfailing to pay utility bills. Altogether, during the first round\\n\\f6 Nos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044\\n\\nof voir dire questioning, Juror 7 never disclosed a number of\\nher contacts with the courts and criminal justice system.\\n The government moved to exclude Juror 7 for cause, but\\nthe district court denied the motion. Before defense counsel\\neven raised an objection, the district court specifically warned\\nthe government that if it moved to strike Juror 7, the court\\nwould conduct a Batson hearing. The government neverthe‐\\nless used one of its peremptory strikes against Juror 7. Before\\nthe district court swore in the selected panel, the defendants\\nraised a Batson challenge.\\n During the Batson hearing, the government explained that\\nit struck Juror 7 due to her numerous abject engagements with\\nlaw enforcement and the courts. In response, defense counsel\\nlaid out examples that it argued demonstrated the govern‐\\nment’s disparate treatment of similarly‐situated white jurors.\\nIt pointed out that the government never attempted to strike\\nthree other jurors who also had similar judicial encounters.\\nMoreover, the defense pointed out that Juror 35, a white male,\\nhad been recently charged with firearm‐related offenses but\\nfound not guilty by reason of temporary insanity. Addition‐\\nally, the defense suggested that the government’s questions\\nabout Juror 7’s Facebook posts demonstrated the impermissi‐\\nble, racial motivation for the strike. For its part, the govern‐\\nment explained that it was not previously aware of Juror 35’s\\nidentity or background and directed the court’s attention to a\\nlist of potential jurors that the court gave to the parties a week\\nearlier. That list did not include Juror 35. The court deter‐\\nmined that it needed to investigate the matter. It ordered the\\nparties to submit same‐day briefing on the Batson challenge\\nand adjourned for the day.\\n\\fNos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044 7\\n\\n On the second day of trial, the district court determined\\nthat the clerk’s office failed to include information about Juror\\n35 and several others in the materials it distributed to the par‐\\nties.1 The court allowed the parties to conduct supplemental\\nvoir dire for a few jurors, beginning with Juror 5, whom de‐\\nfense counsel identified during its Batson challenge as an ex‐\\nample of the government’s disparate treatment. On further\\nquestioning, despite initially claiming to have never been in‐\\nvolved with the courts, Juror 5 admitted that he experienced\\na foreclosure and a bankruptcy years earlier but claimed he\\ndid not understand the court’s earlier questions about previ‐\\nous court experience.\\n The parties then questioned Juror 35, a white man. The ad‐\\nditional questions revealed that Juror 35 suffered from PTSD\\nand was found not guilty by reason of a temporary mental\\ndeficiency to three counts related to an incident involving his\\ndischarging a firearm. Juror 35 also disclosed a divorce and a\\nbankruptcy. The government then moved to strike Juror 35\\nfor cause.\\n Next, the court allowed the government to conduct sup‐\\nplemental voir dire questioning of Juror 36, a white woman.\\nThe government’s questioning revealed that Juror 36’s\\nbrother had been convicted of a sexual assault of a minor\\nmore than 30 years earlier. She too had been through a divorce\\nand a bankruptcy years earlier.\\n After the parties finished supplemental voir dire of Juror\\n36, the bailiff informed the court that Juror 35 was in the re‐\\nstroom, vomiting. The government renewed its motion to\\n\\n\\n 1 The record does not clearly identify the other affected jurors.\\n\\f8 Nos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044\\n\\nstrike Juror 35 for cause, which the court granted over\\nHunter’s counsel’s objection.\\n To remedy the confusion regarding missing juror infor‐\\nmation, the district court then started jury selection over from\\nthe same venire. The district court asked all potential jurors,\\nagain, about their involvement with the court systems, giving\\nexplicit examples of different types of relevant proceedings\\nwhere they might have been sworn and given testimony.\\nMultiple jurors then acknowledged that they should have re‐\\nsponded affirmatively to a similar question the day before.\\nThe parties selected a new panel and the government re‐\\nnewed its peremptory strike against Juror 7. However, this\\ntime it also used a peremptory strike on Juror 36.\\n The defense again objected under Batson, arguing that the\\ngovernment treated Juror 7 differently based on her race. The\\ngovernment explained that it struck all jurors who had nega‐\\ntive experiences with the criminal justice system. The defense\\nreplied that the government used its strikes as a pretext for\\nexcluding Juror 7. The defense also complained that the\\ncourt’s process of going back and re‐examining the other po‐\\ntential jurors enabled the government to make a post‐hoc jus‐\\ntification of its impermissible, race‐based strike.\\n The district court concluded the defendants failed to es‐\\ntablish that the government struck Juror 7 on account of her\\nrace. The court noted that, altogether, the government exe‐\\ncuted peremptory strikes on six jurors: five white jurors and\\nJuror 7. Similarly, the court recognized that the government\\narticulated a legitimate, race‐neutral reason for striking Juror\\n7, and that the government struck other similarly‐situated\\nwhite jurors. The district court then swore in the jury, which\\nincluded one African American juror, Juror 12.\\n\\fNos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044 9\\n\\n As previously mentioned, three of the original defendants\\npled guilty and testified for the government. During their tes‐\\ntimony, defense counsel sought to impeach these witnesses\\non the basis that they each benefitted from reduced sentences\\nby virtue of their cooperation with the government. However,\\nat the government’s objection, the district court limited this\\ncross‐examination. Because each of the witnesses originally\\nfaced similar charges to Hunter and Evans, the government\\nworried jurors might deduce the potential imprisonment\\nterms that Hunter and Evans faced. The district court permit‐\\nted cross‐examination about the sentence reduction, but ex‐\\ncluded questioning about the specific terms of their possible\\nsentences.\\n The government also called Steven Strasser, an investiga‐\\ntor at the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office, to tes‐\\ntify at trial. The government never identified Strasser as either\\nan expert or a summary witness ahead of trial, but Strasser\\nbegan his testimony drawing on his professional experiences\\nand his general observations from reviewing hundreds of rob‐\\nberies. After Strasser began to draw comparisons between the\\nsurveillance videos from the different robberies to show con‐\\nsistent patterns, the defense objected. The court found that the\\ngovernment should have designated Strasser as a summary\\nwitness and, because it failed to do so, Strasser’s testimony\\nshould be limited. The court also determined that the testi‐\\nmony was cumulative because the evidence the government\\nexpected him to testify to spoke for itself. The district court\\nlimited Strasser’s testimony to issues of his own involvement\\nin the case. Neither party asked for a curative instruction to\\nthe jury for the testimony that Strasser gave before the de‐\\nfendants’ objection. The district court provided no curative or\\nlimiting instruction.\\n\\f10 Nos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044\\n\\n The jury convicted Hunter and Evans. The district court\\nsentenced them to their mandatory minimum sentences plus\\none day: 107 years for Hunter and 32 years for Evans.\\n II. ANALYSIS\\n On appeal, Hunter and Evans share two main arguments.\\nFirst, the pair argues that the district court erred by rejecting\\ntheir Batson challenge. Second, they argue that the district\\ncourt improperly limited cross‐examination of the govern‐\\nment’s cooperating witnesses about reductions in their poten‐\\ntial sentences.\\n Despite receiving appointed counsel, Hunter also sought\\nand received permission from the court to raise additional ar‐\\nguments, pro se. He objects, pro se, along three lines. First, he\\nmaintains that the district court should have excluded some\\nwitness testimony as hearsay or unduly prejudicial. Second,\\nHunter claims that the district court erred by failing to pro‐\\nvide a curative instruction advising the jury to ignore a por‐\\ntion of Strasser’s testimony. Lastly, Hunter believes that the\\ngovernment proffered insufficient evidence to prove the inter‐\\nstate‐commerce elements on two of the business robberies\\nand the mens rea elements of carjacking.\\n A. The District Court Committed No Error By Rejecting the\\n Batson Challenge\\n Hunter and Evans argue that the district court failed to\\nconduct an adequate Batson inquiry and also improperly ac‐\\ncepted the government’s “implausible” race‐neutral rationale\\nfor striking Juror 7. We review the district court’s finding on\\na Batson challenge for clear error. United States v. Carter, 111\\nF.3d 509, 512 (7th Cir. 1997). “[T]o reverse we must have a firm\\nand definite conviction that a mistake was made.” United\\n\\fNos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044 11\\n\\nStates v. Taylor, 636 F.3d 901, 905 (7th Cir. 2011) (quotation\\nomitted). The Supreme Court has described our standard of\\nreview as “highly deferential.” See Flowers v. Mississippi, 139\\nS. Ct. 2228, 2244 (2019).\\n In Batson, the Supreme Court determined that “the Equal\\nProtection Clause forbids the prosecutor to challenge poten‐\\ntial jurors solely on account of their race or on the assumption\\nthat black jurors as a group will be unable impartially to con‐\\nsider the State’s case against a black defendant.” Batson v. Ken‐\\ntucky, 476 U.S. 79, 89 (1986).\\n There are three steps to a Batson challenge. First, the de‐\\nfendant makes a prima facie showing that the prosecution’s\\nperemptory strikes were discriminatory. Id. at 93‐94. Second,\\nthe government must tender a nonracial reason for the use of\\nits peremptory strike. Id. Lastly, the district court must decide\\nwhether the defendant established purposeful discrimina‐\\ntion. Id. Where the prosecution has “offered a race‐neutral ex‐\\nplanation for the peremptory challenge, the test is com‐\\npressed down to the ultimate question of intentional discrim‐\\nination; the preliminary question of a prima facie case becomes\\nmoot.” Carter, 111 F.3d at 512 n.1 (citing Hernandez v. New\\nYork, 500 U.S. 352, 359 (1991)).\\n Fundamentally, Hunter and Evans seem to believe that be‐\\ncause the court restarted jury selection from the same panel,\\nthe government had time to come up with an ostensibly legit‐\\nimate excuse for striking Juror 7. They charge that the govern‐\\nment clearly demonstrated its impermissible racial motiva‐\\ntion by failing to investigate and strike similarly‐situated ju‐\\nrors. Consequently, they believe they met their Batson burden\\nwith the first panel, but the government was able to hide its\\ndiscriminatory purpose by striking other potential jurors on\\n\\f12 Nos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044\\n\\nsimilar grounds in the second, “redo” panel. The “redo”\\npanel, therefore, deprived them of a valid Batson challenge\\nand prejudiced them.\\n Viewing the whole record, we believe the district court ul‐\\ntimately committed no clear error. But two arguments which\\nHunter and Evans make merit further discussion. First, the\\ngovernment did not ask all other potential jurors the same\\nnumber of probing questions about relationships with the\\ncourts or the criminal justice system. However, it appears that\\nmany of those other jurors (like Juror 7) either failed to dis‐\\nclose all the details they should have or did not understand\\nthis line of questioning. The district court attempted to correct\\nthe jury issues on the “redo” panel by clarifying the question\\nfor the potential jurors. When the government learned of oth‐\\ners’ contacts with the courts, it struck those jurors, too.\\n Second, the government initially did not strike Juror 35,\\ndespite his recent and serious criminal charges. But the clerk’s\\noffice failed to distribute an updated potential juror list to the\\nparties, so the government had no opportunity to investigate\\nand strike Juror 35, as it did other jurors. This error demon‐\\nstrates that the government’s different treatment of Juror 35\\nwas motivated by ignorance, not race. The district court cor‐\\nrected the error when it afforded the parties an opportunity\\nto conduct additional questioning.\\n The record reflects the district court’s Batson concerns. The\\ncourt advised the government that the parties would conduct\\na full Batson hearing if the government used a peremptory\\nstrike against Juror 7. The court also provided a long explana‐\\ntion to the parties as to why it denied the defendants’ Batson\\nchallenge. The defendants urged that the court’s “redo” al‐\\n\\fNos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044 13\\n\\nlowed the government to cure its pretextual excuse for strik‐\\ning Juror 7 by also striking similarly‐situated white jurors.\\nThey argue that this effectively allowed the government to ex‐\\npand its facially race‐neutral rationale, conflicting with Taylor.\\nThat case involved multiple remands from our court to the\\ndistrict court for further exploration of the government’s prof‐\\nfered reason for striking an African American juror. However,\\nwhen the district court conducted another Batson hearing to\\nsupplement the record on remand, “the government took the\\nopportunity to expand on its rationale for striking [the juror],\\nadvancing seven new reasons[.]” Taylor, 636 F.3d at 904. We\\nheld that “[a]ccepting new, unrelated reasons extending well\\nbeyond the prosecutor’s original justification for striking [a\\njuror] amounts to clear error.” Id. at 906.\\n Here, the district court never swore the jury, but instead\\nstarted selection over after new information came to light. The\\ngovernment’s justification for striking Juror 7 remained con‐\\nsistent throughout the whole process. In the wake of a clerical\\nerror, the court’s voir dire process sought to reveal all neces‐\\nsary juror information to benefit the parties. To ensure a fair\\ntrial, the district court had the parties start over in selecting\\nand striking jurors. The district court’s restart process allowed\\nthe government to apply its rationale more evenly and fairly,\\nbut not to expand it. Even if we agree that the district court\\ncould have conducted a more perfect jury selection by starting\\nover with a new panel, we do not believe the district court’s\\n“redo” in this case constituted clear error. The Supreme Court\\nexpressly declined to mandate a procedural approach for\\nhandling jury selection after a party raises a Batson challenge.\\nBatson, 476 U.S. at 99 (“We decline, however, to formulate par‐\\nticular procedures to be followed upon a defendant’s timely\\nobjection to a prosecutor’s challenges.”). See also id. at n.24\\n\\f14 Nos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044\\n\\n(noting the variety of jury selection processes employed in\\nAmerican courts). The district court provided a fair procedure\\nfor jury selection in this case. United States v. Mannie, 509 F.3d\\n851, 857 (7th Cir. 2007) (“It is axiomatic in our system of justice\\nthat an individual is entitled to a fair trial—not a perfect\\none.”).\\n B. The District Court Properly Limited Defense Counsel’s\\n Cross‐Examination of Government Witnesses\\n Hunter and Evans argue that the district court erred by\\npreventing them from cross‐examining the government’s wit‐\\nnesses about the specific mandatory minimum sentences they\\navoided by cooperating with the government. They believe\\nthe district court’s limitation violated the Sixth Amendment’s\\nConfrontation Clause.\\n “Our standard of review when a district court limits the\\ndefendant’s cross‐examination depends on whether the\\ncourt’s limit directly implicates the core values of the Con‐\\nfrontation Clause. If so, we review the limit de novo. If not, we\\nreview the limit only for abuse of discretion.” United States v.\\nTrent, 863 F.3d 699, 704 (7th Cir. 2017) (internal quotations\\nomitted).\\n To advance their argument, Hunter and Evans directly\\nchallenge and invite us to overturn our opinion in United\\nStates v. Trent. We decline their invitation. In Trent, we held\\nthat limiting cross‐examination of government witnesses\\nabout specific sentences and the sentencing guideline ranges\\nthey faced before and after their cooperation with the govern‐\\nment did not violate a defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights.\\n863 F.3d at 706. We explained that to satisfy the Confrontation\\nClause, it is enough that a defendant can elicit that witnesses\\n\\fNos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044 15\\n\\nwill receive a “substantial” reduction in imprisonment. Id.\\nThis limitation is sometimes necessary when criminal defend‐\\nants and government witnesses face the same criminal\\ncharges. We explained that if the jury learned about the pre‐\\ncise sentence terms that government witnesses faced, then it\\ncould deduce or infer the sentences facing the similarly‐\\ncharged defendants. Id. Consequently, the reality of a serious\\nsentence could prejudice the jury and cause it to acquit the\\ndefendants of crimes they actually committed. Id.\\n Hunter and Evans claim that Trent overstates the risk of\\nprejudice from cross‐examination about the mandatory mini‐\\nmum sentences. They argue Trent violates the Confrontation\\nClause and suggest that other circuits disagree with our anal‐\\nysis. To support this claim, Hunter and Evans cite cases from\\nthree other circuits. See United States v. Chandler, 326 F.3d 210\\n(3d Cir. 2003); United States v. Cooks, 52 F.3d 101 (5th Cir. 1995);\\nUnited States v. Larson, 495 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc).\\n However, Chandler and Cooks are distinguishable in that\\nneither the Third nor the Fifth Circuits adopted categorical\\napproaches stating that defendants can cross‐examine coop‐\\nerating witnesses on the precise nature of their prison terms.\\nIn both cases, the courts determined that the analysis depends\\non whether the jury has sufficient information “to appraise\\nthe bias and motives of the witness.” Cooks, 52 F.3d at 104;\\nUnited States v. Mussare, 405 F.3d 161, 170 (3d Cir. 2005) (“In\\nChandler, we left unresolved the question of whether the Con‐\\nfrontation Clause entitles a defendant categorically to inquire\\ninto the concrete terms of a cooperating witness’s agreement\\nwith the government, including the sentence that witness\\nmay have avoided through his cooperation.”) (quotation\\nomitted).\\n\\f16 Nos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044\\n\\n And the Ninth Circuit’s Larson opinion hinges on the fact\\nthat the cooperating witness in that case faced a particularly\\nsevere sentence: life imprisonment. Larson, 495 F.3d at 1107\\n(“[A]ny reduction from a mandatory life sentence is of such a\\nsignificant magnitude that excluding this information de‐\\nnie[s] the jury important information necessary to evaluate\\n[the witness’s] credibility.”). We do not find the Ninth Cir‐\\ncuit’s analysis so persuasive as to abandon Trent. The Eighth\\nCircuit explicitly rejected Larson’s approach. See United States\\nv. Wright, 866 F.3d 899, 907 (8th Cir. 2017). And at any rate,\\nnone of the government’s witnesses in this case faced a sen‐\\ntence of life imprisonment.\\n Here, the district court directly followed our guidance in\\nTrent. The record shows that the defense cross‐examined the\\ngovernment’s witnesses on the fact that they benefitted from\\ncooperating with the government. Specifically, defense coun‐\\nsel elicited from witnesses that, without cooperating, they\\nwould have, “never seen the light of day” and would have\\n“died in prison.” The defense’s cross‐examination exposed\\nenough information for the jury to deduce that the witnesses\\nreceived a serious benefit from cooperating with the govern‐\\nment. See Trent, 863 F.3d at 706 (“Because the court allowed\\nTrent to engage in this thorough cross‐examination, which\\nreadily exposed any of [the witnesses’] biases and incentives\\nto testify adversely to Trent, the court did not offend the core\\nvalues of the Confrontation Clause.”). As in Trent, the district\\ncourt’s limitation did not significantly impact Hunter and Ev‐\\nans’ ability to cross‐examine adverse witnesses.\\n C. Hunter’s Pro Se Arguments Do Not Prevail\\n Despite Hunter’s representation by counsel, we also au‐\\nthorized him to present several arguments in an additional,\\n\\fNos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044 17\\n\\npro se brief. “Although there is no Sixth Amendment right to\\nfile a pro se brief when the appellant is represented by counsel,\\nnothing precludes an appellate court from accepting the pro\\nse brief and considering the arguments contained therein for\\nwhatever they may be worth.” Hayes v. Hawes, 921 F.2d 100,\\n102 (7th Cir. 1990) (per curiam). Although sometimes author‐\\nized (as here), the filing of pro se briefs by a defendant who is\\nrepresented by counsel is generally unhelpful. We consider\\nHunter’s remaining, pro se arguments in turn.\\n 1. The District Court Made Proper Evidentiary Rulings\\n Hunter, pro se, raises challenges to several evidentiary rul‐\\nings made by the district court. “We review the admission of\\nevidence for an abuse of discretion and ‘will reverse an evi‐\\ndentiary ruling only when the record contains no evidence on\\nwhich the district court rationally could have based its rul‐\\ning.’” United States v. Quiroz, 874 F.3d 562, 569 (7th Cir. 2017)\\n(quoting United States v. Gorman, 613 F.3d 711, 717 (7th Cir.\\n2010)).\\n First, Hunter believes that the district court should have\\nexcluded Brown’s testimony because she was a “biased” wit‐\\nness. Earlier we mentioned that Brown’s son and fiancé were\\ndefendants in the case who pled guilty and agreed to testify\\nagainst Hunter and Evans. To support this argument, Hunter\\ncites United States v. Abel, 469 U.S. 45, 53 (1984). However, Abel\\nestablished that evidence of membership in a prison gang\\ncould be introduced to impeach a witness because it was pro‐\\nbative of witness bias, not that biased witness testimony could\\nnever be admitted. Id. Indeed, the Court in Abel specifically\\nvalidated exposing witness bias as an acceptable means of im‐\\npeachment under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Id. at 51. And\\nHunter’s counsel exposed Brown’s relationship to two of the\\n\\f18 Nos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044\\n\\ngovernment’s cooperating witnesses and her potential bias on\\ncross‐examination. We therefore find no error in allowing\\nBrown’s testimony.\\n Second, Hunter challenges another portion of Brown’s\\ntrial testimony on hearsay grounds. At trial, Brown testified\\nto overhearing Hunter discuss details of the Walgreen’s rob‐\\nbery in her kitchen. Over defense counsel’s objection, the dis‐\\ntrict court agreed with the government that that the testimony\\nfell into the hearsay exception for a statement by a party op‐\\nponent. Fed. R. Evid. 801. We agree. The Rule provides that\\nstatements made by a party in an individual capacity that are\\nlater offered against him are not hearsay. Fed. R. Evid.\\n801(d)(2)(A). Hunter attempts to rely on United States v. El‐\\nMezain for the proposition that “a witness’s testimony must\\nbe based on personal knowledge.” 664 F.3d 467, 495 (5th Cir.\\n2011). He claims that because Brown testified that she learned\\nof the Walgreens robbery from the news, she did not base her\\ntestimony about his involvement in the robbery on personal\\nknowledge. Hunter’s argument misses the point. Brown’s tes‐\\ntimony centered on her personal knowledge of what she\\nheard Hunter say, and those things are admissible as non‐\\nhearsay statements by a party opponent. Jordan v. Binns, 712\\nF.3d 1123, 1128–29 (7th Cir. 2013) (“There are only two re‐\\nquirements for admissibility under FRE 801(d)(2)(A): a state‐\\nment was made by a party, and the statement was offered\\nagainst that party.”).\\n Hunter similarly objects to testimony given by Kelly Scott,\\none of the co‐defendants who cooperated with the govern‐\\nment. Like Brown, Hunter believes Scott was a biased witness,\\nbut this complaint fails for the same reason. Hunter and Evans\\nmade Scott’s cooperation with the government an issue at\\n\\fNos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044 19\\n\\ntrial, suggesting that Scott’s reward for cooperating—a re‐\\nduced sentence—motivated him to fabricate his testimony\\nagainst them. Attempting to rehabilitate Scott, the govern‐\\nment asked him whether he had anything to fear by cooper‐\\nating and testifying. Scott mentioned that someone had hit\\nhim over the head in jail. The district court overruled the de‐\\nfense’s objection for relevance. Scott also testified that he over‐\\nheard Hunter and Evans discussing the case and making\\nthreats against him in a holding area during the trial.\\n Hunter claims that the district court should have excluded\\nthis testimony as irrelevant and characterizes it as highly prej‐\\nudicial to the jury. We previously have held that evidence of\\nthreats by a defendant against a prosecution witness on direct\\nexamination is inadmissible unless it is linked to a specific\\ncredibility issue at trial—like a witness’s behavior on the\\nstand or testimony that is inconsistent with prior statements.\\nSee United States v. Thomas, 86 F.3d 647, 654 (7th Cir. 1996);\\nUnited States v. Thompson, 359 F.3d 470, 477 (7th Cir. 2004). In‐\\ndeed, Thomas and Thompson each rejected efforts to use threats\\nagainst a witness to generally “bolster” or “boost” a witness’s\\ncredibility. However, we have also held that “[o]nce a wit‐\\nness’s credibility has been attacked…the non‐attacking party\\nis permitted to admit evidence to ‘rehabilitate’ the witness.”\\nUnited States v. Lindemann, 85 F.3d 1232, 1242 (7th Cir. 1996).\\nWe have explained that the government may introduce testi‐\\nmony about a witness’s motives on direct examination when\\nsuch testimony is rehabilitative and likely to give the jury a\\nfull picture. United States v. McKinney, 954 F.2d 471, 479 (7th\\nCir. 1992).\\n Hunter’s defense counsel aggressively challenged the in‐\\ntegrity of the government’s witnesses from the trial’s start and\\n\\f20 Nos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044\\n\\nvigorously cross‐examined them about their motivations to\\nlie. With respect to Scott, defense counsel thoroughly walked\\nthrough Scott’s inconsistent statements, criminal history, and\\nhis belief that lying to the police is occasionally permissible.\\nThe threats occurred in the midst of and in response to Scott’s\\ndecision to testify for the government, so they were relevant\\nto his testimony and credibility. In this context, we cannot\\nagree that the district court abused its discretion by allowing\\nScott to testify to the adverse consequences of his cooperation.\\nSee id. (“Whether the potential for unfair prejudice of a given\\npiece of evidence outweighs its probative value is a decision\\nleft to the district court’s discretion.”).\\n Accordingly, we find no errors in the district court’s evi‐\\ndentiary rulings.\\n Hunter also claims that Dominique Rollins gave “false tes‐\\ntimony” on the government’s behalf. A defendant who\\n“seek[s] a new trial based on perjured testimony has the bur‐\\nden to show that (1) the prosecution’s case included perjured\\ntestimony; (2) the prosecution knew, or should have known,\\nof the perjury; and (3) there is a likelihood that the false testi‐\\nmony affected the judgment of the jury.” United States v.\\nCosby, 924 F.3d 329, 336 (7th Cir. 2019) (citation and internal\\nquotation omitted). Hunter points to confusion and seeming\\ncontradictions in Rollins’ testimony to support this claim. But\\neven if Rollins gave confused testimony, Hunter fails to point\\nto convincing evidence of perjury, much less perjury that the\\ngovernment knowingly proffered. We therefore conclude that\\nthis claim also fails.\\n 2. The Lack of a Curative Instruction for Investigator\\n Strasser’s Limited Testimony Was No Error\\n\\fNos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044 21\\n\\n Hunter believes that the district court should have admin‐\\nistered a curative instruction to the jury advising it to disre‐\\ngard a portion of Strasser’s trial testimony. The defense ob‐\\njected to Strasser’s testimony on the grounds that the govern‐\\nment never designated him as an expert or summary witness.\\nThe district court sustained the defense’s objections and de‐\\ntermined that Strasser could only testify to evidence in the\\ncase that he personally worked on or developed. However,\\nbefore the objection, Strasser testified that he had viewed hun‐\\ndreds of examples of robbery footage and that generally crim‐\\ninals use the same tactics in each robbery. In his pro se brief,\\nHunter claims that the district court should have issued a cu‐\\nrative instruction to advise the jury to disregard Strasser’s\\nbrief, pre‐objection testimony. The defense did not request a\\ncurative instruction at the time. Reviewing this on a plain er‐\\nror standard, Hunter’s argument fails. United States v. Chris‐\\ntian, 673 F.3d 702, 708 (7th Cir. 2012) (plain error requires that\\nabsent the error, the defendant probably would not have been\\nconvicted). Strasser’s brief comments before the objection\\nprovided little information and could not have significantly\\nprejudiced Hunter.\\n 3. The Government Presented Sufficient Evidence to Support\\n Hunter’s Convictions\\n Hunter argues that the government failed to offer evi‐\\ndence to prove every element of his conviction under the\\nHobbs Act, which criminalizes robbery or extortion that af‐\\nfects commerce. See 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a). Hunter specifically\\nclaims that the government failed to prove that the robberies\\naffected interstate commerce. However, the government only\\nneeds to show a de minimis effect on interstate commerce.\\nUnited States v. Bailey, 227 F.3d 792, 797 (7th Cir. 2000). Here,\\n\\f22 Nos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044\\n\\nthe parties stipulated that the Roman’s Food Market and the\\nGeorge Webb restaurant were businesses engaged in inter‐\\nstate commerce. Hunter was involved in robbing both stores,\\nwhich temporarily shut down after the robberies. Therefore,\\nthe government provided sufficient evidence to satisfy the\\n“affects commerce” element of the Act.\\n Hunter lastly argues that the government produced insuf‐\\nficient evidence to satisfy the mens rea element for the car jack‐\\nings. Under 18 U.S.C. § 2119, a defendant must “inten[d] to\\ncause death or serious bodily harm.” Given the defendants’\\naffinity for pistol‐whipping their victims, we find it hard to\\nsee the basis for this argument. We previously explained that\\nthe defendant need not actually attempt to kill or harm the\\nvictim, but rather must possess a “conditional intent to do the\\ndriver harm had he not complied with the defendants’ de‐\\nmands.” United States v Jones, 188 F.3d 773, 777 (7th Cir. 1999).\\nThe Cadillac’s driver testified that the two men who carjacked\\nhim forced him to the ground and struck him in the back of\\nthe head with a gun. With respect to the Ford Focus, the vic‐\\ntim testified that Hunter pressed a firearm into his stomach\\nand took his possessions, including his car. The government\\nprovided evidence that both instances involved threats\\nbacked by a deadly weapon. One instance involved serious\\nphysical harm. The government provided sufficient evidence\\nto establish the mens rea.\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district\\ncourt is AFFIRMED.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4422866/\", \"author_raw\": \"Michael Stephen Kanne\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"FLAUM"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"KANNE"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"SCUDDER"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645613/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":8,"string":"8"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Otis HUNTER and Deshawn Evans, Defendants-Appellants.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-08-05\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n Plaintiff‐Appellee,\n v.\n\nOTIS HUNTER and\nDESHAWN EVANS,\n Defendants‐Appellants.\n ____________________\n\n Appeals from the United States District Court for the\n Eastern District of Wisconsin.\n Nos. 17‐CR‐29‐2 and 17‐CR‐29‐4 — J.P. Stadtmueller, Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED APRIL 5, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 5, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before FLAUM, KANNE, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.\n KANNE, Circuit Judge. Police arrested five men involved in\na string of Milwaukee armed robberies in late 2016. Three of\nthe defendants cooperated with the government and pled\nguilty. The two remaining defendants, Otis Hunter and\nDeshawn Evans, proceeded to trial where a jury convicted\nthem. Through counsel, the pair challenges the district court’s\nhandling of jury selection and denial of their Batson challenge.\n\f2 Nos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044\n\nThey also challenge our circuit precedent and argue that the\ndistrict court violated the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation\nClause when it prevented them from cross‐examining gov‐\nernment witnesses about the specific prison terms they\navoided through their cooperation. After obtaining authori‐\nzation from the court, Hunter made additional, pro se argu‐\nments challenging how the trial court handled witness testi‐\nmony and whether the government provided sufficient evi‐\ndence to support his conviction. All challenges are rejected\nand we affirm.\n I. BACKGROUND\n Authorities arrested five men in connection with a series\nof crimes in late 2016: Dominique Rollins, Otis Hunter, Kelly\nScott, Deshawn Evans, and Anthony Lindsey. Rollins, Scott,\nand Lindsey pled guilty and testified for the government, but\nHunter and Evans proceeded to trial.\n The government connected the defendants to the follow‐\ning crimes. First, on November 17, 2016, Hunter, Rollins, and\nScott committed an armed robbery of a Roman’s Food Market.\nThey held up an employee, made him open the cash register,\nstruck him on the head with a pistol, and then took the money\nand a large quantity of Newport cigarettes. Surveillance foot‐\nage captured the robbery. Rollins and Scott testified at trial\nthat they robbed the store with Hunter. They also narrated the\nsurveillance footage and identified Hunter and his pistol. At\nthe time of the robberies, Doris Brown—Lindsey’s mother\nand Scott’s fiancée—lived at a house on 15th Place where the\ndefendants regularly congregated. She later testified that she\nsaw Hunter with many packs of Newport cigarettes. She also\nviewed the surveillance footage and identified the robbers.\n\fNos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044 3\n\n Three days later, on November 20, two men committed an\narmed carjacking of a food delivery driver outside of Aurora\nSinai Hospital. The robbers struck the driver on the head with\na pistol, took his phone, car keys, and wallet, and fled in his\nblack Cadillac CTS. Surveillance footage captured the rob‐\nbery. Scott and Lindsey viewed the footage at trial and iden‐\ntified the pair as Hunter and Evans.\n Then on November 22, three men with stocking‐covered\nfaces robbed a George Webb restaurant. Two of the robbers\nbrandished pistols. They took $70 in cash and some receipts\nfrom the register and held up employees. The three fled the\nscene in a black Cadillac. As before, surveillance footage cap‐\ntured the robbery. Scott and Lindsey confessed to robbing the\nrestaurant with Hunter and identified Hunter and Scott at\ntrial as the pair who brandished firearms.\n A day after the George Webb robbery, on November 23,\npolice found the black Cadillac CTS parked near the home on\n15th Place where the defendants met. Inside the car, they\nfound receipts from the George Webb restaurant and a nylon\nstocking. DNA recovered from the stocking linked it to de‐\nfendant Anthony Lindsey.\n On November 25, two men attempted to rob a Walgreens\npharmacy at gunpoint. One of the two men brandished a pis‐\ntol and pointed it at the cashier. When the cashier failed to\nopen the register, the robber struck him on the head with the\npistol, knocking him to the ground. The robbers also failed to\nopen the register. They instead attempted to rob the custom‐\ners as a consolation but recovered no valuables. Surveillance\nfootage captured the attempted robbery. Lindsey, Scott, and\nDoris Brown viewed the footage at trial and identified the rob‐\n\f4 Nos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044\n\nbers as defendants Hunter and Evans, with Evans brandish‐\ning the firearm and striking the cashier. Brown also testified\nthat she overheard Hunter discussing the Walgreen’s robbery\nat her house.\n On December 4, two men carjacked the owner of a Ford\nFocus. They cornered the victim against the side of the car,\none pressed a firearm into the victim’s stomach, and they\nrobbed him, taking his credit cards, phone, and wallet before\nmaking their escape in his vehicle. About 30 minutes after the\ncarjacking, the robbers used the victim’s credit cards at a Foot\nLocker store. The Foot Locker’s surveillance footage from the\ntime of the purchase showed Hunter there, accompanied by a\nminor. The victim identified the pair as the carjackers through\nphotographs and later identified Hunter in court as the car‐\njacker who pressed the pistol into his stomach. Brown, Scott,\nLindsey, and Rollins each viewed the surveillance footage\nand identified Hunter.\n On December 5, the stolen Ford Focus turned up parked\nbehind the house on 15th Place. Police arrested Evans, the mi‐\nnor, and Anthony Lindsey in the car. Hunter—on‐the‐run—\nwas arrested five days later in Ohio. Hunter’s vehicle con‐\ntained new Foot Locker merchandise and multiple Foot\nLocker receipts dated December 4, which reflected purchases\nmade with the credit cards taken during the Ford Focus car‐\njacking.\n The grand jury returned an 11‐count indictment against\nthe five men. Relevant to this appeal, Hunter was charged\nwith conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371), robbery of the Roman’s\nFood Market under the Hobbs Act (18 U.S.C. § 1951), carjack‐\ning the Cadillac (18 U.S.C. § 2119), robbery of the George\nWebb restaurant under the Hobbs Act, attempted robbery of\n\fNos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044 5\n\nthe Walgreens under the Hobbs Act, and carjacking the Ford\nFocus. Hunter was also charged with brandishing a firearm\nduring each of these crimes in violation of 18 U.S.C.\n§ 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). Evans faced charges for conspiracy, carjack‐\ning the Cadillac, and the attempted robbery at Walgreens. He\nwas also charged with brandishing a firearm during these\ncrimes.\n Hunter and Evans—who are both African Americans—\nproceeded to a jury trial. As a preface to jury selection, the\ncourt questioned all potential jurors about their experiences\ntestifying under oath in the judicial system and the courts.\nHowever, multiple jurors failed to disclose relevant infor‐\nmation related to this line of questioning. During jury selec‐\ntion, the government struck several jurors for cause and used\nits peremptory strikes. The entire jury pool included just three\npotential African American jurors. The initial voir dire in‐\ncluded only two. One of these two, Juror 12, was eventually\nempaneled.\n The government questioned the other potential African\nAmerican juror, Juror 7, about an allegedly racially‐charged\nFacebook post on her profile. The government also learned\nthat Juror 7’s family had significant contacts with the criminal\njustice system and she personally had other abject experiences\nwith the courts. Specifically, Juror 7’s son has been adjudi‐\ncated delinquent on multiple occasions, and her ex‐husband\nwas occasionally imprisoned following numerous convic‐\ntions. During one of her ex‐husband’s arrests, authorities\nseized her firearm, which she later petitioned a court to re‐\ncover. Juror 7 had also been through multiple eviction pro‐\nceedings, a bankruptcy, and received adverse judgments for\nfailing to pay utility bills. Altogether, during the first round\n\f6 Nos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044\n\nof voir dire questioning, Juror 7 never disclosed a number of\nher contacts with the courts and criminal justice system.\n The government moved to exclude Juror 7 for cause, but\nthe district court denied the motion. Before defense counsel\neven raised an objection, the district court specifically warned\nthe government that if it moved to strike Juror 7, the court\nwould conduct a Batson hearing. The government neverthe‐\nless used one of its peremptory strikes against Juror 7. Before\nthe district court swore in the selected panel, the defendants\nraised a Batson challenge.\n During the Batson hearing, the government explained that\nit struck Juror 7 due to her numerous abject engagements with\nlaw enforcement and the courts. In response, defense counsel\nlaid out examples that it argued demonstrated the govern‐\nment’s disparate treatment of similarly‐situated white jurors.\nIt pointed out that the government never attempted to strike\nthree other jurors who also had similar judicial encounters.\nMoreover, the defense pointed out that Juror 35, a white male,\nhad been recently charged with firearm‐related offenses but\nfound not guilty by reason of temporary insanity. Addition‐\nally, the defense suggested that the government’s questions\nabout Juror 7’s Facebook posts demonstrated the impermissi‐\nble, racial motivation for the strike. For its part, the govern‐\nment explained that it was not previously aware of Juror 35’s\nidentity or background and directed the court’s attention to a\nlist of potential jurors that the court gave to the parties a week\nearlier. That list did not include Juror 35. The court deter‐\nmined that it needed to investigate the matter. It ordered the\nparties to submit same‐day briefing on the Batson challenge\nand adjourned for the day.\n\fNos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044 7\n\n On the second day of trial, the district court determined\nthat the clerk’s office failed to include information about Juror\n35 and several others in the materials it distributed to the par‐\nties.1 The court allowed the parties to conduct supplemental\nvoir dire for a few jurors, beginning with Juror 5, whom de‐\nfense counsel identified during its Batson challenge as an ex‐\nample of the government’s disparate treatment. On further\nquestioning, despite initially claiming to have never been in‐\nvolved with the courts, Juror 5 admitted that he experienced\na foreclosure and a bankruptcy years earlier but claimed he\ndid not understand the court’s earlier questions about previ‐\nous court experience.\n The parties then questioned Juror 35, a white man. The ad‐\nditional questions revealed that Juror 35 suffered from PTSD\nand was found not guilty by reason of a temporary mental\ndeficiency to three counts related to an incident involving his\ndischarging a firearm. Juror 35 also disclosed a divorce and a\nbankruptcy. The government then moved to strike Juror 35\nfor cause.\n Next, the court allowed the government to conduct sup‐\nplemental voir dire questioning of Juror 36, a white woman.\nThe government’s questioning revealed that Juror 36’s\nbrother had been convicted of a sexual assault of a minor\nmore than 30 years earlier. She too had been through a divorce\nand a bankruptcy years earlier.\n After the parties finished supplemental voir dire of Juror\n36, the bailiff informed the court that Juror 35 was in the re‐\nstroom, vomiting. The government renewed its motion to\n\n\n 1 The record does not clearly identify the other affected jurors.\n\f8 Nos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044\n\nstrike Juror 35 for cause, which the court granted over\nHunter’s counsel’s objection.\n To remedy the confusion regarding missing juror infor‐\nmation, the district court then started jury selection over from\nthe same venire. The district court asked all potential jurors,\nagain, about their involvement with the court systems, giving\nexplicit examples of different types of relevant proceedings\nwhere they might have been sworn and given testimony.\nMultiple jurors then acknowledged that they should have re‐\nsponded affirmatively to a similar question the day before.\nThe parties selected a new panel and the government re‐\nnewed its peremptory strike against Juror 7. However, this\ntime it also used a peremptory strike on Juror 36.\n The defense again objected under Batson, arguing that the\ngovernment treated Juror 7 differently based on her race. The\ngovernment explained that it struck all jurors who had nega‐\ntive experiences with the criminal justice system. The defense\nreplied that the government used its strikes as a pretext for\nexcluding Juror 7. The defense also complained that the\ncourt’s process of going back and re‐examining the other po‐\ntential jurors enabled the government to make a post‐hoc jus‐\ntification of its impermissible, race‐based strike.\n The district court concluded the defendants failed to es‐\ntablish that the government struck Juror 7 on account of her\nrace. The court noted that, altogether, the government exe‐\ncuted peremptory strikes on six jurors: five white jurors and\nJuror 7. Similarly, the court recognized that the government\narticulated a legitimate, race‐neutral reason for striking Juror\n7, and that the government struck other similarly‐situated\nwhite jurors. The district court then swore in the jury, which\nincluded one African American juror, Juror 12.\n\fNos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044 9\n\n As previously mentioned, three of the original defendants\npled guilty and testified for the government. During their tes‐\ntimony, defense counsel sought to impeach these witnesses\non the basis that they each benefitted from reduced sentences\nby virtue of their cooperation with the government. However,\nat the government’s objection, the district court limited this\ncross‐examination. Because each of the witnesses originally\nfaced similar charges to Hunter and Evans, the government\nworried jurors might deduce the potential imprisonment\nterms that Hunter and Evans faced. The district court permit‐\nted cross‐examination about the sentence reduction, but ex‐\ncluded questioning about the specific terms of their possible\nsentences.\n The government also called Steven Strasser, an investiga‐\ntor at the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office, to tes‐\ntify at trial. The government never identified Strasser as either\nan expert or a summary witness ahead of trial, but Strasser\nbegan his testimony drawing on his professional experiences\nand his general observations from reviewing hundreds of rob‐\nberies. After Strasser began to draw comparisons between the\nsurveillance videos from the different robberies to show con‐\nsistent patterns, the defense objected. The court found that the\ngovernment should have designated Strasser as a summary\nwitness and, because it failed to do so, Strasser’s testimony\nshould be limited. The court also determined that the testi‐\nmony was cumulative because the evidence the government\nexpected him to testify to spoke for itself. The district court\nlimited Strasser’s testimony to issues of his own involvement\nin the case. Neither party asked for a curative instruction to\nthe jury for the testimony that Strasser gave before the de‐\nfendants’ objection. The district court provided no curative or\nlimiting instruction.\n\f10 Nos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044\n\n The jury convicted Hunter and Evans. The district court\nsentenced them to their mandatory minimum sentences plus\none day: 107 years for Hunter and 32 years for Evans.\n II. ANALYSIS\n On appeal, Hunter and Evans share two main arguments.\nFirst, the pair argues that the district court erred by rejecting\ntheir Batson challenge. Second, they argue that the district\ncourt improperly limited cross‐examination of the govern‐\nment’s cooperating witnesses about reductions in their poten‐\ntial sentences.\n Despite receiving appointed counsel, Hunter also sought\nand received permission from the court to raise additional ar‐\nguments, pro se. He objects, pro se, along three lines. First, he\nmaintains that the district court should have excluded some\nwitness testimony as hearsay or unduly prejudicial. Second,\nHunter claims that the district court erred by failing to pro‐\nvide a curative instruction advising the jury to ignore a por‐\ntion of Strasser’s testimony. Lastly, Hunter believes that the\ngovernment proffered insufficient evidence to prove the inter‐\nstate‐commerce elements on two of the business robberies\nand the mens rea elements of carjacking.\n A. The District Court Committed No Error By Rejecting the\n Batson Challenge\n Hunter and Evans argue that the district court failed to\nconduct an adequate Batson inquiry and also improperly ac‐\ncepted the government’s “implausible” race‐neutral rationale\nfor striking Juror 7. We review the district court’s finding on\na Batson challenge for clear error. United States v. Carter, 111\nF.3d 509, 512 (7th Cir. 1997). “[T]o reverse we must have a firm\nand definite conviction that a mistake was made.” United\n\fNos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044 11\n\nStates v. Taylor, 636 F.3d 901, 905 (7th Cir. 2011) (quotation\nomitted). The Supreme Court has described our standard of\nreview as “highly deferential.” See Flowers v. Mississippi, 139\nS. Ct. 2228, 2244 (2019).\n In Batson, the Supreme Court determined that “the Equal\nProtection Clause forbids the prosecutor to challenge poten‐\ntial jurors solely on account of their race or on the assumption\nthat black jurors as a group will be unable impartially to con‐\nsider the State’s case against a black defendant.” Batson v. Ken‐\ntucky, 476 U.S. 79, 89 (1986).\n There are three steps to a Batson challenge. First, the de‐\nfendant makes a prima facie showing that the prosecution’s\nperemptory strikes were discriminatory. Id. at 93‐94. Second,\nthe government must tender a nonracial reason for the use of\nits peremptory strike. Id. Lastly, the district court must decide\nwhether the defendant established purposeful discrimina‐\ntion. Id. Where the prosecution has “offered a race‐neutral ex‐\nplanation for the peremptory challenge, the test is com‐\npressed down to the ultimate question of intentional discrim‐\nination; the preliminary question of a prima facie case becomes\nmoot.” Carter, 111 F.3d at 512 n.1 (citing Hernandez v. New\nYork, 500 U.S. 352, 359 (1991)).\n Fundamentally, Hunter and Evans seem to believe that be‐\ncause the court restarted jury selection from the same panel,\nthe government had time to come up with an ostensibly legit‐\nimate excuse for striking Juror 7. They charge that the govern‐\nment clearly demonstrated its impermissible racial motiva‐\ntion by failing to investigate and strike similarly‐situated ju‐\nrors. Consequently, they believe they met their Batson burden\nwith the first panel, but the government was able to hide its\ndiscriminatory purpose by striking other potential jurors on\n\f12 Nos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044\n\nsimilar grounds in the second, “redo” panel. The “redo”\npanel, therefore, deprived them of a valid Batson challenge\nand prejudiced them.\n Viewing the whole record, we believe the district court ul‐\ntimately committed no clear error. But two arguments which\nHunter and Evans make merit further discussion. First, the\ngovernment did not ask all other potential jurors the same\nnumber of probing questions about relationships with the\ncourts or the criminal justice system. However, it appears that\nmany of those other jurors (like Juror 7) either failed to dis‐\nclose all the details they should have or did not understand\nthis line of questioning. The district court attempted to correct\nthe jury issues on the “redo” panel by clarifying the question\nfor the potential jurors. When the government learned of oth‐\ners’ contacts with the courts, it struck those jurors, too.\n Second, the government initially did not strike Juror 35,\ndespite his recent and serious criminal charges. But the clerk’s\noffice failed to distribute an updated potential juror list to the\nparties, so the government had no opportunity to investigate\nand strike Juror 35, as it did other jurors. This error demon‐\nstrates that the government’s different treatment of Juror 35\nwas motivated by ignorance, not race. The district court cor‐\nrected the error when it afforded the parties an opportunity\nto conduct additional questioning.\n The record reflects the district court’s Batson concerns. The\ncourt advised the government that the parties would conduct\na full Batson hearing if the government used a peremptory\nstrike against Juror 7. The court also provided a long explana‐\ntion to the parties as to why it denied the defendants’ Batson\nchallenge. The defendants urged that the court’s “redo” al‐\n\fNos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044 13\n\nlowed the government to cure its pretextual excuse for strik‐\ning Juror 7 by also striking similarly‐situated white jurors.\nThey argue that this effectively allowed the government to ex‐\npand its facially race‐neutral rationale, conflicting with Taylor.\nThat case involved multiple remands from our court to the\ndistrict court for further exploration of the government’s prof‐\nfered reason for striking an African American juror. However,\nwhen the district court conducted another Batson hearing to\nsupplement the record on remand, “the government took the\nopportunity to expand on its rationale for striking [the juror],\nadvancing seven new reasons[.]” Taylor, 636 F.3d at 904. We\nheld that “[a]ccepting new, unrelated reasons extending well\nbeyond the prosecutor’s original justification for striking [a\njuror] amounts to clear error.” Id. at 906.\n Here, the district court never swore the jury, but instead\nstarted selection over after new information came to light. The\ngovernment’s justification for striking Juror 7 remained con‐\nsistent throughout the whole process. In the wake of a clerical\nerror, the court’s voir dire process sought to reveal all neces‐\nsary juror information to benefit the parties. To ensure a fair\ntrial, the district court had the parties start over in selecting\nand striking jurors. The district court’s restart process allowed\nthe government to apply its rationale more evenly and fairly,\nbut not to expand it. Even if we agree that the district court\ncould have conducted a more perfect jury selection by starting\nover with a new panel, we do not believe the district court’s\n“redo” in this case constituted clear error. The Supreme Court\nexpressly declined to mandate a procedural approach for\nhandling jury selection after a party raises a Batson challenge.\nBatson, 476 U.S. at 99 (“We decline, however, to formulate par‐\nticular procedures to be followed upon a defendant’s timely\nobjection to a prosecutor’s challenges.”). See also id. at n.24\n\f14 Nos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044\n\n(noting the variety of jury selection processes employed in\nAmerican courts). The district court provided a fair procedure\nfor jury selection in this case. United States v. Mannie, 509 F.3d\n851, 857 (7th Cir. 2007) (“It is axiomatic in our system of justice\nthat an individual is entitled to a fair trial—not a perfect\none.”).\n B. The District Court Properly Limited Defense Counsel’s\n Cross‐Examination of Government Witnesses\n Hunter and Evans argue that the district court erred by\npreventing them from cross‐examining the government’s wit‐\nnesses about the specific mandatory minimum sentences they\navoided by cooperating with the government. They believe\nthe district court’s limitation violated the Sixth Amendment’s\nConfrontation Clause.\n “Our standard of review when a district court limits the\ndefendant’s cross‐examination depends on whether the\ncourt’s limit directly implicates the core values of the Con‐\nfrontation Clause. If so, we review the limit de novo. If not, we\nreview the limit only for abuse of discretion.” United States v.\nTrent, 863 F.3d 699, 704 (7th Cir. 2017) (internal quotations\nomitted).\n To advance their argument, Hunter and Evans directly\nchallenge and invite us to overturn our opinion in United\nStates v. Trent. We decline their invitation. In Trent, we held\nthat limiting cross‐examination of government witnesses\nabout specific sentences and the sentencing guideline ranges\nthey faced before and after their cooperation with the govern‐\nment did not violate a defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights.\n863 F.3d at 706. We explained that to satisfy the Confrontation\nClause, it is enough that a defendant can elicit that witnesses\n\fNos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044 15\n\nwill receive a “substantial” reduction in imprisonment. Id.\nThis limitation is sometimes necessary when criminal defend‐\nants and government witnesses face the same criminal\ncharges. We explained that if the jury learned about the pre‐\ncise sentence terms that government witnesses faced, then it\ncould deduce or infer the sentences facing the similarly‐\ncharged defendants. Id. Consequently, the reality of a serious\nsentence could prejudice the jury and cause it to acquit the\ndefendants of crimes they actually committed. Id.\n Hunter and Evans claim that Trent overstates the risk of\nprejudice from cross‐examination about the mandatory mini‐\nmum sentences. They argue Trent violates the Confrontation\nClause and suggest that other circuits disagree with our anal‐\nysis. To support this claim, Hunter and Evans cite cases from\nthree other circuits. See United States v. Chandler, 326 F.3d 210\n(3d Cir. 2003); United States v. Cooks, 52 F.3d 101 (5th Cir. 1995);\nUnited States v. Larson, 495 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc).\n However, Chandler and Cooks are distinguishable in that\nneither the Third nor the Fifth Circuits adopted categorical\napproaches stating that defendants can cross‐examine coop‐\nerating witnesses on the precise nature of their prison terms.\nIn both cases, the courts determined that the analysis depends\non whether the jury has sufficient information “to appraise\nthe bias and motives of the witness.” Cooks, 52 F.3d at 104;\nUnited States v. Mussare, 405 F.3d 161, 170 (3d Cir. 2005) (“In\nChandler, we left unresolved the question of whether the Con‐\nfrontation Clause entitles a defendant categorically to inquire\ninto the concrete terms of a cooperating witness’s agreement\nwith the government, including the sentence that witness\nmay have avoided through his cooperation.”) (quotation\nomitted).\n\f16 Nos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044\n\n And the Ninth Circuit’s Larson opinion hinges on the fact\nthat the cooperating witness in that case faced a particularly\nsevere sentence: life imprisonment. Larson, 495 F.3d at 1107\n(“[A]ny reduction from a mandatory life sentence is of such a\nsignificant magnitude that excluding this information de‐\nnie[s] the jury important information necessary to evaluate\n[the witness’s] credibility.”). We do not find the Ninth Cir‐\ncuit’s analysis so persuasive as to abandon Trent. The Eighth\nCircuit explicitly rejected Larson’s approach. See United States\nv. Wright, 866 F.3d 899, 907 (8th Cir. 2017). And at any rate,\nnone of the government’s witnesses in this case faced a sen‐\ntence of life imprisonment.\n Here, the district court directly followed our guidance in\nTrent. The record shows that the defense cross‐examined the\ngovernment’s witnesses on the fact that they benefitted from\ncooperating with the government. Specifically, defense coun‐\nsel elicited from witnesses that, without cooperating, they\nwould have, “never seen the light of day” and would have\n“died in prison.” The defense’s cross‐examination exposed\nenough information for the jury to deduce that the witnesses\nreceived a serious benefit from cooperating with the govern‐\nment. See Trent, 863 F.3d at 706 (“Because the court allowed\nTrent to engage in this thorough cross‐examination, which\nreadily exposed any of [the witnesses’] biases and incentives\nto testify adversely to Trent, the court did not offend the core\nvalues of the Confrontation Clause.”). As in Trent, the district\ncourt’s limitation did not significantly impact Hunter and Ev‐\nans’ ability to cross‐examine adverse witnesses.\n C. Hunter’s Pro Se Arguments Do Not Prevail\n Despite Hunter’s representation by counsel, we also au‐\nthorized him to present several arguments in an additional,\n\fNos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044 17\n\npro se brief. “Although there is no Sixth Amendment right to\nfile a pro se brief when the appellant is represented by counsel,\nnothing precludes an appellate court from accepting the pro\nse brief and considering the arguments contained therein for\nwhatever they may be worth.” Hayes v. Hawes, 921 F.2d 100,\n102 (7th Cir. 1990) (per curiam). Although sometimes author‐\nized (as here), the filing of pro se briefs by a defendant who is\nrepresented by counsel is generally unhelpful. We consider\nHunter’s remaining, pro se arguments in turn.\n 1. The District Court Made Proper Evidentiary Rulings\n Hunter, pro se, raises challenges to several evidentiary rul‐\nings made by the district court. “We review the admission of\nevidence for an abuse of discretion and ‘will reverse an evi‐\ndentiary ruling only when the record contains no evidence on\nwhich the district court rationally could have based its rul‐\ning.’” United States v. Quiroz, 874 F.3d 562, 569 (7th Cir. 2017)\n(quoting United States v. Gorman, 613 F.3d 711, 717 (7th Cir.\n2010)).\n First, Hunter believes that the district court should have\nexcluded Brown’s testimony because she was a “biased” wit‐\nness. Earlier we mentioned that Brown’s son and fiancé were\ndefendants in the case who pled guilty and agreed to testify\nagainst Hunter and Evans. To support this argument, Hunter\ncites United States v. Abel, 469 U.S. 45, 53 (1984). However, Abel\nestablished that evidence of membership in a prison gang\ncould be introduced to impeach a witness because it was pro‐\nbative of witness bias, not that biased witness testimony could\nnever be admitted. Id. Indeed, the Court in Abel specifically\nvalidated exposing witness bias as an acceptable means of im‐\npeachment under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Id. at 51. And\nHunter’s counsel exposed Brown’s relationship to two of the\n\f18 Nos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044\n\ngovernment’s cooperating witnesses and her potential bias on\ncross‐examination. We therefore find no error in allowing\nBrown’s testimony.\n Second, Hunter challenges another portion of Brown’s\ntrial testimony on hearsay grounds. At trial, Brown testified\nto overhearing Hunter discuss details of the Walgreen’s rob‐\nbery in her kitchen. Over defense counsel’s objection, the dis‐\ntrict court agreed with the government that that the testimony\nfell into the hearsay exception for a statement by a party op‐\nponent. Fed. R. Evid. 801. We agree. The Rule provides that\nstatements made by a party in an individual capacity that are\nlater offered against him are not hearsay. Fed. R. Evid.\n801(d)(2)(A). Hunter attempts to rely on United States v. El‐\nMezain for the proposition that “a witness’s testimony must\nbe based on personal knowledge.” 664 F.3d 467, 495 (5th Cir.\n2011). He claims that because Brown testified that she learned\nof the Walgreens robbery from the news, she did not base her\ntestimony about his involvement in the robbery on personal\nknowledge. Hunter’s argument misses the point. Brown’s tes‐\ntimony centered on her personal knowledge of what she\nheard Hunter say, and those things are admissible as non‐\nhearsay statements by a party opponent. Jordan v. Binns, 712\nF.3d 1123, 1128–29 (7th Cir. 2013) (“There are only two re‐\nquirements for admissibility under FRE 801(d)(2)(A): a state‐\nment was made by a party, and the statement was offered\nagainst that party.”).\n Hunter similarly objects to testimony given by Kelly Scott,\none of the co‐defendants who cooperated with the govern‐\nment. Like Brown, Hunter believes Scott was a biased witness,\nbut this complaint fails for the same reason. Hunter and Evans\nmade Scott’s cooperation with the government an issue at\n\fNos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044 19\n\ntrial, suggesting that Scott’s reward for cooperating—a re‐\nduced sentence—motivated him to fabricate his testimony\nagainst them. Attempting to rehabilitate Scott, the govern‐\nment asked him whether he had anything to fear by cooper‐\nating and testifying. Scott mentioned that someone had hit\nhim over the head in jail. The district court overruled the de‐\nfense’s objection for relevance. Scott also testified that he over‐\nheard Hunter and Evans discussing the case and making\nthreats against him in a holding area during the trial.\n Hunter claims that the district court should have excluded\nthis testimony as irrelevant and characterizes it as highly prej‐\nudicial to the jury. We previously have held that evidence of\nthreats by a defendant against a prosecution witness on direct\nexamination is inadmissible unless it is linked to a specific\ncredibility issue at trial—like a witness’s behavior on the\nstand or testimony that is inconsistent with prior statements.\nSee United States v. Thomas, 86 F.3d 647, 654 (7th Cir. 1996);\nUnited States v. Thompson, 359 F.3d 470, 477 (7th Cir. 2004). In‐\ndeed, Thomas and Thompson each rejected efforts to use threats\nagainst a witness to generally “bolster” or “boost” a witness’s\ncredibility. However, we have also held that “[o]nce a wit‐\nness’s credibility has been attacked…the non‐attacking party\nis permitted to admit evidence to ‘rehabilitate’ the witness.”\nUnited States v. Lindemann, 85 F.3d 1232, 1242 (7th Cir. 1996).\nWe have explained that the government may introduce testi‐\nmony about a witness’s motives on direct examination when\nsuch testimony is rehabilitative and likely to give the jury a\nfull picture. United States v. McKinney, 954 F.2d 471, 479 (7th\nCir. 1992).\n Hunter’s defense counsel aggressively challenged the in‐\ntegrity of the government’s witnesses from the trial’s start and\n\f20 Nos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044\n\nvigorously cross‐examined them about their motivations to\nlie. With respect to Scott, defense counsel thoroughly walked\nthrough Scott’s inconsistent statements, criminal history, and\nhis belief that lying to the police is occasionally permissible.\nThe threats occurred in the midst of and in response to Scott’s\ndecision to testify for the government, so they were relevant\nto his testimony and credibility. In this context, we cannot\nagree that the district court abused its discretion by allowing\nScott to testify to the adverse consequences of his cooperation.\nSee id. (“Whether the potential for unfair prejudice of a given\npiece of evidence outweighs its probative value is a decision\nleft to the district court’s discretion.”).\n Accordingly, we find no errors in the district court’s evi‐\ndentiary rulings.\n Hunter also claims that Dominique Rollins gave “false tes‐\ntimony” on the government’s behalf. A defendant who\n“seek[s] a new trial based on perjured testimony has the bur‐\nden to show that (1) the prosecution’s case included perjured\ntestimony; (2) the prosecution knew, or should have known,\nof the perjury; and (3) there is a likelihood that the false testi‐\nmony affected the judgment of the jury.” United States v.\nCosby, 924 F.3d 329, 336 (7th Cir. 2019) (citation and internal\nquotation omitted). Hunter points to confusion and seeming\ncontradictions in Rollins’ testimony to support this claim. But\neven if Rollins gave confused testimony, Hunter fails to point\nto convincing evidence of perjury, much less perjury that the\ngovernment knowingly proffered. We therefore conclude that\nthis claim also fails.\n 2. The Lack of a Curative Instruction for Investigator\n Strasser’s Limited Testimony Was No Error\n\fNos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044 21\n\n Hunter believes that the district court should have admin‐\nistered a curative instruction to the jury advising it to disre‐\ngard a portion of Strasser’s trial testimony. The defense ob‐\njected to Strasser’s testimony on the grounds that the govern‐\nment never designated him as an expert or summary witness.\nThe district court sustained the defense’s objections and de‐\ntermined that Strasser could only testify to evidence in the\ncase that he personally worked on or developed. However,\nbefore the objection, Strasser testified that he had viewed hun‐\ndreds of examples of robbery footage and that generally crim‐\ninals use the same tactics in each robbery. In his pro se brief,\nHunter claims that the district court should have issued a cu‐\nrative instruction to advise the jury to disregard Strasser’s\nbrief, pre‐objection testimony. The defense did not request a\ncurative instruction at the time. Reviewing this on a plain er‐\nror standard, Hunter’s argument fails. United States v. Chris‐\ntian, 673 F.3d 702, 708 (7th Cir. 2012) (plain error requires that\nabsent the error, the defendant probably would not have been\nconvicted). Strasser’s brief comments before the objection\nprovided little information and could not have significantly\nprejudiced Hunter.\n 3. The Government Presented Sufficient Evidence to Support\n Hunter’s Convictions\n Hunter argues that the government failed to offer evi‐\ndence to prove every element of his conviction under the\nHobbs Act, which criminalizes robbery or extortion that af‐\nfects commerce. See 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a). Hunter specifically\nclaims that the government failed to prove that the robberies\naffected interstate commerce. However, the government only\nneeds to show a de minimis effect on interstate commerce.\nUnited States v. Bailey, 227 F.3d 792, 797 (7th Cir. 2000). Here,\n\f22 Nos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044\n\nthe parties stipulated that the Roman’s Food Market and the\nGeorge Webb restaurant were businesses engaged in inter‐\nstate commerce. Hunter was involved in robbing both stores,\nwhich temporarily shut down after the robberies. Therefore,\nthe government provided sufficient evidence to satisfy the\n“affects commerce” element of the Act.\n Hunter lastly argues that the government produced insuf‐\nficient evidence to satisfy the mens rea element for the car jack‐\nings. Under 18 U.S.C. § 2119, a defendant must “inten[d] to\ncause death or serious bodily harm.” Given the defendants’\naffinity for pistol‐whipping their victims, we find it hard to\nsee the basis for this argument. We previously explained that\nthe defendant need not actually attempt to kill or harm the\nvictim, but rather must possess a “conditional intent to do the\ndriver harm had he not complied with the defendants’ de‐\nmands.” United States v Jones, 188 F.3d 773, 777 (7th Cir. 1999).\nThe Cadillac’s driver testified that the two men who carjacked\nhim forced him to the ground and struck him in the back of\nthe head with a gun. With respect to the Ford Focus, the vic‐\ntim testified that Hunter pressed a firearm into his stomach\nand took his possessions, including his car. The government\nprovided evidence that both instances involved threats\nbacked by a deadly weapon. One instance involved serious\nphysical harm. The government provided sufficient evidence\nto establish the mens rea.\n III. CONCLUSION\n For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district\ncourt is AFFIRMED.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Otis HUNTER and Deshawn Evans, Defendants-Appellants.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-08-05\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044\\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\\n Plaintiff‐Appellee,\\n v.\\n\\nOTIS HUNTER and\\nDESHAWN EVANS,\\n Defendants‐Appellants.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeals from the United States District Court for the\\n Eastern District of Wisconsin.\\n Nos. 17‐CR‐29‐2 and 17‐CR‐29‐4 — J.P. Stadtmueller, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED APRIL 5, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 5, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before FLAUM, KANNE, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.\\n KANNE, Circuit Judge. Police arrested five men involved in\\na string of Milwaukee armed robberies in late 2016. Three of\\nthe defendants cooperated with the government and pled\\nguilty. The two remaining defendants, Otis Hunter and\\nDeshawn Evans, proceeded to trial where a jury convicted\\nthem. Through counsel, the pair challenges the district court’s\\nhandling of jury selection and denial of their Batson challenge.\\n\\f2 Nos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044\\n\\nThey also challenge our circuit precedent and argue that the\\ndistrict court violated the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation\\nClause when it prevented them from cross‐examining gov‐\\nernment witnesses about the specific prison terms they\\navoided through their cooperation. After obtaining authori‐\\nzation from the court, Hunter made additional, pro se argu‐\\nments challenging how the trial court handled witness testi‐\\nmony and whether the government provided sufficient evi‐\\ndence to support his conviction. All challenges are rejected\\nand we affirm.\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n Authorities arrested five men in connection with a series\\nof crimes in late 2016: Dominique Rollins, Otis Hunter, Kelly\\nScott, Deshawn Evans, and Anthony Lindsey. Rollins, Scott,\\nand Lindsey pled guilty and testified for the government, but\\nHunter and Evans proceeded to trial.\\n The government connected the defendants to the follow‐\\ning crimes. First, on November 17, 2016, Hunter, Rollins, and\\nScott committed an armed robbery of a Roman’s Food Market.\\nThey held up an employee, made him open the cash register,\\nstruck him on the head with a pistol, and then took the money\\nand a large quantity of Newport cigarettes. Surveillance foot‐\\nage captured the robbery. Rollins and Scott testified at trial\\nthat they robbed the store with Hunter. They also narrated the\\nsurveillance footage and identified Hunter and his pistol. At\\nthe time of the robberies, Doris Brown—Lindsey’s mother\\nand Scott’s fiancée—lived at a house on 15th Place where the\\ndefendants regularly congregated. She later testified that she\\nsaw Hunter with many packs of Newport cigarettes. She also\\nviewed the surveillance footage and identified the robbers.\\n\\fNos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044 3\\n\\n Three days later, on November 20, two men committed an\\narmed carjacking of a food delivery driver outside of Aurora\\nSinai Hospital. The robbers struck the driver on the head with\\na pistol, took his phone, car keys, and wallet, and fled in his\\nblack Cadillac CTS. Surveillance footage captured the rob‐\\nbery. Scott and Lindsey viewed the footage at trial and iden‐\\ntified the pair as Hunter and Evans.\\n Then on November 22, three men with stocking‐covered\\nfaces robbed a George Webb restaurant. Two of the robbers\\nbrandished pistols. They took $70 in cash and some receipts\\nfrom the register and held up employees. The three fled the\\nscene in a black Cadillac. As before, surveillance footage cap‐\\ntured the robbery. Scott and Lindsey confessed to robbing the\\nrestaurant with Hunter and identified Hunter and Scott at\\ntrial as the pair who brandished firearms.\\n A day after the George Webb robbery, on November 23,\\npolice found the black Cadillac CTS parked near the home on\\n15th Place where the defendants met. Inside the car, they\\nfound receipts from the George Webb restaurant and a nylon\\nstocking. DNA recovered from the stocking linked it to de‐\\nfendant Anthony Lindsey.\\n On November 25, two men attempted to rob a Walgreens\\npharmacy at gunpoint. One of the two men brandished a pis‐\\ntol and pointed it at the cashier. When the cashier failed to\\nopen the register, the robber struck him on the head with the\\npistol, knocking him to the ground. The robbers also failed to\\nopen the register. They instead attempted to rob the custom‐\\ners as a consolation but recovered no valuables. Surveillance\\nfootage captured the attempted robbery. Lindsey, Scott, and\\nDoris Brown viewed the footage at trial and identified the rob‐\\n\\f4 Nos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044\\n\\nbers as defendants Hunter and Evans, with Evans brandish‐\\ning the firearm and striking the cashier. Brown also testified\\nthat she overheard Hunter discussing the Walgreen’s robbery\\nat her house.\\n On December 4, two men carjacked the owner of a Ford\\nFocus. They cornered the victim against the side of the car,\\none pressed a firearm into the victim’s stomach, and they\\nrobbed him, taking his credit cards, phone, and wallet before\\nmaking their escape in his vehicle. About 30 minutes after the\\ncarjacking, the robbers used the victim’s credit cards at a Foot\\nLocker store. The Foot Locker’s surveillance footage from the\\ntime of the purchase showed Hunter there, accompanied by a\\nminor. The victim identified the pair as the carjackers through\\nphotographs and later identified Hunter in court as the car‐\\njacker who pressed the pistol into his stomach. Brown, Scott,\\nLindsey, and Rollins each viewed the surveillance footage\\nand identified Hunter.\\n On December 5, the stolen Ford Focus turned up parked\\nbehind the house on 15th Place. Police arrested Evans, the mi‐\\nnor, and Anthony Lindsey in the car. Hunter—on‐the‐run—\\nwas arrested five days later in Ohio. Hunter’s vehicle con‐\\ntained new Foot Locker merchandise and multiple Foot\\nLocker receipts dated December 4, which reflected purchases\\nmade with the credit cards taken during the Ford Focus car‐\\njacking.\\n The grand jury returned an 11‐count indictment against\\nthe five men. Relevant to this appeal, Hunter was charged\\nwith conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371), robbery of the Roman’s\\nFood Market under the Hobbs Act (18 U.S.C. § 1951), carjack‐\\ning the Cadillac (18 U.S.C. § 2119), robbery of the George\\nWebb restaurant under the Hobbs Act, attempted robbery of\\n\\fNos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044 5\\n\\nthe Walgreens under the Hobbs Act, and carjacking the Ford\\nFocus. Hunter was also charged with brandishing a firearm\\nduring each of these crimes in violation of 18 U.S.C.\\n§ 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). Evans faced charges for conspiracy, carjack‐\\ning the Cadillac, and the attempted robbery at Walgreens. He\\nwas also charged with brandishing a firearm during these\\ncrimes.\\n Hunter and Evans—who are both African Americans—\\nproceeded to a jury trial. As a preface to jury selection, the\\ncourt questioned all potential jurors about their experiences\\ntestifying under oath in the judicial system and the courts.\\nHowever, multiple jurors failed to disclose relevant infor‐\\nmation related to this line of questioning. During jury selec‐\\ntion, the government struck several jurors for cause and used\\nits peremptory strikes. The entire jury pool included just three\\npotential African American jurors. The initial voir dire in‐\\ncluded only two. One of these two, Juror 12, was eventually\\nempaneled.\\n The government questioned the other potential African\\nAmerican juror, Juror 7, about an allegedly racially‐charged\\nFacebook post on her profile. The government also learned\\nthat Juror 7’s family had significant contacts with the criminal\\njustice system and she personally had other abject experiences\\nwith the courts. Specifically, Juror 7’s son has been adjudi‐\\ncated delinquent on multiple occasions, and her ex‐husband\\nwas occasionally imprisoned following numerous convic‐\\ntions. During one of her ex‐husband’s arrests, authorities\\nseized her firearm, which she later petitioned a court to re‐\\ncover. Juror 7 had also been through multiple eviction pro‐\\nceedings, a bankruptcy, and received adverse judgments for\\nfailing to pay utility bills. Altogether, during the first round\\n\\f6 Nos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044\\n\\nof voir dire questioning, Juror 7 never disclosed a number of\\nher contacts with the courts and criminal justice system.\\n The government moved to exclude Juror 7 for cause, but\\nthe district court denied the motion. Before defense counsel\\neven raised an objection, the district court specifically warned\\nthe government that if it moved to strike Juror 7, the court\\nwould conduct a Batson hearing. The government neverthe‐\\nless used one of its peremptory strikes against Juror 7. Before\\nthe district court swore in the selected panel, the defendants\\nraised a Batson challenge.\\n During the Batson hearing, the government explained that\\nit struck Juror 7 due to her numerous abject engagements with\\nlaw enforcement and the courts. In response, defense counsel\\nlaid out examples that it argued demonstrated the govern‐\\nment’s disparate treatment of similarly‐situated white jurors.\\nIt pointed out that the government never attempted to strike\\nthree other jurors who also had similar judicial encounters.\\nMoreover, the defense pointed out that Juror 35, a white male,\\nhad been recently charged with firearm‐related offenses but\\nfound not guilty by reason of temporary insanity. Addition‐\\nally, the defense suggested that the government’s questions\\nabout Juror 7’s Facebook posts demonstrated the impermissi‐\\nble, racial motivation for the strike. For its part, the govern‐\\nment explained that it was not previously aware of Juror 35’s\\nidentity or background and directed the court’s attention to a\\nlist of potential jurors that the court gave to the parties a week\\nearlier. That list did not include Juror 35. The court deter‐\\nmined that it needed to investigate the matter. It ordered the\\nparties to submit same‐day briefing on the Batson challenge\\nand adjourned for the day.\\n\\fNos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044 7\\n\\n On the second day of trial, the district court determined\\nthat the clerk’s office failed to include information about Juror\\n35 and several others in the materials it distributed to the par‐\\nties.1 The court allowed the parties to conduct supplemental\\nvoir dire for a few jurors, beginning with Juror 5, whom de‐\\nfense counsel identified during its Batson challenge as an ex‐\\nample of the government’s disparate treatment. On further\\nquestioning, despite initially claiming to have never been in‐\\nvolved with the courts, Juror 5 admitted that he experienced\\na foreclosure and a bankruptcy years earlier but claimed he\\ndid not understand the court’s earlier questions about previ‐\\nous court experience.\\n The parties then questioned Juror 35, a white man. The ad‐\\nditional questions revealed that Juror 35 suffered from PTSD\\nand was found not guilty by reason of a temporary mental\\ndeficiency to three counts related to an incident involving his\\ndischarging a firearm. Juror 35 also disclosed a divorce and a\\nbankruptcy. The government then moved to strike Juror 35\\nfor cause.\\n Next, the court allowed the government to conduct sup‐\\nplemental voir dire questioning of Juror 36, a white woman.\\nThe government’s questioning revealed that Juror 36’s\\nbrother had been convicted of a sexual assault of a minor\\nmore than 30 years earlier. She too had been through a divorce\\nand a bankruptcy years earlier.\\n After the parties finished supplemental voir dire of Juror\\n36, the bailiff informed the court that Juror 35 was in the re‐\\nstroom, vomiting. The government renewed its motion to\\n\\n\\n 1 The record does not clearly identify the other affected jurors.\\n\\f8 Nos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044\\n\\nstrike Juror 35 for cause, which the court granted over\\nHunter’s counsel’s objection.\\n To remedy the confusion regarding missing juror infor‐\\nmation, the district court then started jury selection over from\\nthe same venire. The district court asked all potential jurors,\\nagain, about their involvement with the court systems, giving\\nexplicit examples of different types of relevant proceedings\\nwhere they might have been sworn and given testimony.\\nMultiple jurors then acknowledged that they should have re‐\\nsponded affirmatively to a similar question the day before.\\nThe parties selected a new panel and the government re‐\\nnewed its peremptory strike against Juror 7. However, this\\ntime it also used a peremptory strike on Juror 36.\\n The defense again objected under Batson, arguing that the\\ngovernment treated Juror 7 differently based on her race. The\\ngovernment explained that it struck all jurors who had nega‐\\ntive experiences with the criminal justice system. The defense\\nreplied that the government used its strikes as a pretext for\\nexcluding Juror 7. The defense also complained that the\\ncourt’s process of going back and re‐examining the other po‐\\ntential jurors enabled the government to make a post‐hoc jus‐\\ntification of its impermissible, race‐based strike.\\n The district court concluded the defendants failed to es‐\\ntablish that the government struck Juror 7 on account of her\\nrace. The court noted that, altogether, the government exe‐\\ncuted peremptory strikes on six jurors: five white jurors and\\nJuror 7. Similarly, the court recognized that the government\\narticulated a legitimate, race‐neutral reason for striking Juror\\n7, and that the government struck other similarly‐situated\\nwhite jurors. The district court then swore in the jury, which\\nincluded one African American juror, Juror 12.\\n\\fNos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044 9\\n\\n As previously mentioned, three of the original defendants\\npled guilty and testified for the government. During their tes‐\\ntimony, defense counsel sought to impeach these witnesses\\non the basis that they each benefitted from reduced sentences\\nby virtue of their cooperation with the government. However,\\nat the government’s objection, the district court limited this\\ncross‐examination. Because each of the witnesses originally\\nfaced similar charges to Hunter and Evans, the government\\nworried jurors might deduce the potential imprisonment\\nterms that Hunter and Evans faced. The district court permit‐\\nted cross‐examination about the sentence reduction, but ex‐\\ncluded questioning about the specific terms of their possible\\nsentences.\\n The government also called Steven Strasser, an investiga‐\\ntor at the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office, to tes‐\\ntify at trial. The government never identified Strasser as either\\nan expert or a summary witness ahead of trial, but Strasser\\nbegan his testimony drawing on his professional experiences\\nand his general observations from reviewing hundreds of rob‐\\nberies. After Strasser began to draw comparisons between the\\nsurveillance videos from the different robberies to show con‐\\nsistent patterns, the defense objected. The court found that the\\ngovernment should have designated Strasser as a summary\\nwitness and, because it failed to do so, Strasser’s testimony\\nshould be limited. The court also determined that the testi‐\\nmony was cumulative because the evidence the government\\nexpected him to testify to spoke for itself. The district court\\nlimited Strasser’s testimony to issues of his own involvement\\nin the case. Neither party asked for a curative instruction to\\nthe jury for the testimony that Strasser gave before the de‐\\nfendants’ objection. The district court provided no curative or\\nlimiting instruction.\\n\\f10 Nos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044\\n\\n The jury convicted Hunter and Evans. The district court\\nsentenced them to their mandatory minimum sentences plus\\none day: 107 years for Hunter and 32 years for Evans.\\n II. ANALYSIS\\n On appeal, Hunter and Evans share two main arguments.\\nFirst, the pair argues that the district court erred by rejecting\\ntheir Batson challenge. Second, they argue that the district\\ncourt improperly limited cross‐examination of the govern‐\\nment’s cooperating witnesses about reductions in their poten‐\\ntial sentences.\\n Despite receiving appointed counsel, Hunter also sought\\nand received permission from the court to raise additional ar‐\\nguments, pro se. He objects, pro se, along three lines. First, he\\nmaintains that the district court should have excluded some\\nwitness testimony as hearsay or unduly prejudicial. Second,\\nHunter claims that the district court erred by failing to pro‐\\nvide a curative instruction advising the jury to ignore a por‐\\ntion of Strasser’s testimony. Lastly, Hunter believes that the\\ngovernment proffered insufficient evidence to prove the inter‐\\nstate‐commerce elements on two of the business robberies\\nand the mens rea elements of carjacking.\\n A. The District Court Committed No Error By Rejecting the\\n Batson Challenge\\n Hunter and Evans argue that the district court failed to\\nconduct an adequate Batson inquiry and also improperly ac‐\\ncepted the government’s “implausible” race‐neutral rationale\\nfor striking Juror 7. We review the district court’s finding on\\na Batson challenge for clear error. United States v. Carter, 111\\nF.3d 509, 512 (7th Cir. 1997). “[T]o reverse we must have a firm\\nand definite conviction that a mistake was made.” United\\n\\fNos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044 11\\n\\nStates v. Taylor, 636 F.3d 901, 905 (7th Cir. 2011) (quotation\\nomitted). The Supreme Court has described our standard of\\nreview as “highly deferential.” See Flowers v. Mississippi, 139\\nS. Ct. 2228, 2244 (2019).\\n In Batson, the Supreme Court determined that “the Equal\\nProtection Clause forbids the prosecutor to challenge poten‐\\ntial jurors solely on account of their race or on the assumption\\nthat black jurors as a group will be unable impartially to con‐\\nsider the State’s case against a black defendant.” Batson v. Ken‐\\ntucky, 476 U.S. 79, 89 (1986).\\n There are three steps to a Batson challenge. First, the de‐\\nfendant makes a prima facie showing that the prosecution’s\\nperemptory strikes were discriminatory. Id. at 93‐94. Second,\\nthe government must tender a nonracial reason for the use of\\nits peremptory strike. Id. Lastly, the district court must decide\\nwhether the defendant established purposeful discrimina‐\\ntion. Id. Where the prosecution has “offered a race‐neutral ex‐\\nplanation for the peremptory challenge, the test is com‐\\npressed down to the ultimate question of intentional discrim‐\\nination; the preliminary question of a prima facie case becomes\\nmoot.” Carter, 111 F.3d at 512 n.1 (citing Hernandez v. New\\nYork, 500 U.S. 352, 359 (1991)).\\n Fundamentally, Hunter and Evans seem to believe that be‐\\ncause the court restarted jury selection from the same panel,\\nthe government had time to come up with an ostensibly legit‐\\nimate excuse for striking Juror 7. They charge that the govern‐\\nment clearly demonstrated its impermissible racial motiva‐\\ntion by failing to investigate and strike similarly‐situated ju‐\\nrors. Consequently, they believe they met their Batson burden\\nwith the first panel, but the government was able to hide its\\ndiscriminatory purpose by striking other potential jurors on\\n\\f12 Nos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044\\n\\nsimilar grounds in the second, “redo” panel. The “redo”\\npanel, therefore, deprived them of a valid Batson challenge\\nand prejudiced them.\\n Viewing the whole record, we believe the district court ul‐\\ntimately committed no clear error. But two arguments which\\nHunter and Evans make merit further discussion. First, the\\ngovernment did not ask all other potential jurors the same\\nnumber of probing questions about relationships with the\\ncourts or the criminal justice system. However, it appears that\\nmany of those other jurors (like Juror 7) either failed to dis‐\\nclose all the details they should have or did not understand\\nthis line of questioning. The district court attempted to correct\\nthe jury issues on the “redo” panel by clarifying the question\\nfor the potential jurors. When the government learned of oth‐\\ners’ contacts with the courts, it struck those jurors, too.\\n Second, the government initially did not strike Juror 35,\\ndespite his recent and serious criminal charges. But the clerk’s\\noffice failed to distribute an updated potential juror list to the\\nparties, so the government had no opportunity to investigate\\nand strike Juror 35, as it did other jurors. This error demon‐\\nstrates that the government’s different treatment of Juror 35\\nwas motivated by ignorance, not race. The district court cor‐\\nrected the error when it afforded the parties an opportunity\\nto conduct additional questioning.\\n The record reflects the district court’s Batson concerns. The\\ncourt advised the government that the parties would conduct\\na full Batson hearing if the government used a peremptory\\nstrike against Juror 7. The court also provided a long explana‐\\ntion to the parties as to why it denied the defendants’ Batson\\nchallenge. The defendants urged that the court’s “redo” al‐\\n\\fNos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044 13\\n\\nlowed the government to cure its pretextual excuse for strik‐\\ning Juror 7 by also striking similarly‐situated white jurors.\\nThey argue that this effectively allowed the government to ex‐\\npand its facially race‐neutral rationale, conflicting with Taylor.\\nThat case involved multiple remands from our court to the\\ndistrict court for further exploration of the government’s prof‐\\nfered reason for striking an African American juror. However,\\nwhen the district court conducted another Batson hearing to\\nsupplement the record on remand, “the government took the\\nopportunity to expand on its rationale for striking [the juror],\\nadvancing seven new reasons[.]” Taylor, 636 F.3d at 904. We\\nheld that “[a]ccepting new, unrelated reasons extending well\\nbeyond the prosecutor’s original justification for striking [a\\njuror] amounts to clear error.” Id. at 906.\\n Here, the district court never swore the jury, but instead\\nstarted selection over after new information came to light. The\\ngovernment’s justification for striking Juror 7 remained con‐\\nsistent throughout the whole process. In the wake of a clerical\\nerror, the court’s voir dire process sought to reveal all neces‐\\nsary juror information to benefit the parties. To ensure a fair\\ntrial, the district court had the parties start over in selecting\\nand striking jurors. The district court’s restart process allowed\\nthe government to apply its rationale more evenly and fairly,\\nbut not to expand it. Even if we agree that the district court\\ncould have conducted a more perfect jury selection by starting\\nover with a new panel, we do not believe the district court’s\\n“redo” in this case constituted clear error. The Supreme Court\\nexpressly declined to mandate a procedural approach for\\nhandling jury selection after a party raises a Batson challenge.\\nBatson, 476 U.S. at 99 (“We decline, however, to formulate par‐\\nticular procedures to be followed upon a defendant’s timely\\nobjection to a prosecutor’s challenges.”). See also id. at n.24\\n\\f14 Nos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044\\n\\n(noting the variety of jury selection processes employed in\\nAmerican courts). The district court provided a fair procedure\\nfor jury selection in this case. United States v. Mannie, 509 F.3d\\n851, 857 (7th Cir. 2007) (“It is axiomatic in our system of justice\\nthat an individual is entitled to a fair trial—not a perfect\\none.”).\\n B. The District Court Properly Limited Defense Counsel’s\\n Cross‐Examination of Government Witnesses\\n Hunter and Evans argue that the district court erred by\\npreventing them from cross‐examining the government’s wit‐\\nnesses about the specific mandatory minimum sentences they\\navoided by cooperating with the government. They believe\\nthe district court’s limitation violated the Sixth Amendment’s\\nConfrontation Clause.\\n “Our standard of review when a district court limits the\\ndefendant’s cross‐examination depends on whether the\\ncourt’s limit directly implicates the core values of the Con‐\\nfrontation Clause. If so, we review the limit de novo. If not, we\\nreview the limit only for abuse of discretion.” United States v.\\nTrent, 863 F.3d 699, 704 (7th Cir. 2017) (internal quotations\\nomitted).\\n To advance their argument, Hunter and Evans directly\\nchallenge and invite us to overturn our opinion in United\\nStates v. Trent. We decline their invitation. In Trent, we held\\nthat limiting cross‐examination of government witnesses\\nabout specific sentences and the sentencing guideline ranges\\nthey faced before and after their cooperation with the govern‐\\nment did not violate a defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights.\\n863 F.3d at 706. We explained that to satisfy the Confrontation\\nClause, it is enough that a defendant can elicit that witnesses\\n\\fNos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044 15\\n\\nwill receive a “substantial” reduction in imprisonment. Id.\\nThis limitation is sometimes necessary when criminal defend‐\\nants and government witnesses face the same criminal\\ncharges. We explained that if the jury learned about the pre‐\\ncise sentence terms that government witnesses faced, then it\\ncould deduce or infer the sentences facing the similarly‐\\ncharged defendants. Id. Consequently, the reality of a serious\\nsentence could prejudice the jury and cause it to acquit the\\ndefendants of crimes they actually committed. Id.\\n Hunter and Evans claim that Trent overstates the risk of\\nprejudice from cross‐examination about the mandatory mini‐\\nmum sentences. They argue Trent violates the Confrontation\\nClause and suggest that other circuits disagree with our anal‐\\nysis. To support this claim, Hunter and Evans cite cases from\\nthree other circuits. See United States v. Chandler, 326 F.3d 210\\n(3d Cir. 2003); United States v. Cooks, 52 F.3d 101 (5th Cir. 1995);\\nUnited States v. Larson, 495 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc).\\n However, Chandler and Cooks are distinguishable in that\\nneither the Third nor the Fifth Circuits adopted categorical\\napproaches stating that defendants can cross‐examine coop‐\\nerating witnesses on the precise nature of their prison terms.\\nIn both cases, the courts determined that the analysis depends\\non whether the jury has sufficient information “to appraise\\nthe bias and motives of the witness.” Cooks, 52 F.3d at 104;\\nUnited States v. Mussare, 405 F.3d 161, 170 (3d Cir. 2005) (“In\\nChandler, we left unresolved the question of whether the Con‐\\nfrontation Clause entitles a defendant categorically to inquire\\ninto the concrete terms of a cooperating witness’s agreement\\nwith the government, including the sentence that witness\\nmay have avoided through his cooperation.”) (quotation\\nomitted).\\n\\f16 Nos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044\\n\\n And the Ninth Circuit’s Larson opinion hinges on the fact\\nthat the cooperating witness in that case faced a particularly\\nsevere sentence: life imprisonment. Larson, 495 F.3d at 1107\\n(“[A]ny reduction from a mandatory life sentence is of such a\\nsignificant magnitude that excluding this information de‐\\nnie[s] the jury important information necessary to evaluate\\n[the witness’s] credibility.”). We do not find the Ninth Cir‐\\ncuit’s analysis so persuasive as to abandon Trent. The Eighth\\nCircuit explicitly rejected Larson’s approach. See United States\\nv. Wright, 866 F.3d 899, 907 (8th Cir. 2017). And at any rate,\\nnone of the government’s witnesses in this case faced a sen‐\\ntence of life imprisonment.\\n Here, the district court directly followed our guidance in\\nTrent. The record shows that the defense cross‐examined the\\ngovernment’s witnesses on the fact that they benefitted from\\ncooperating with the government. Specifically, defense coun‐\\nsel elicited from witnesses that, without cooperating, they\\nwould have, “never seen the light of day” and would have\\n“died in prison.” The defense’s cross‐examination exposed\\nenough information for the jury to deduce that the witnesses\\nreceived a serious benefit from cooperating with the govern‐\\nment. See Trent, 863 F.3d at 706 (“Because the court allowed\\nTrent to engage in this thorough cross‐examination, which\\nreadily exposed any of [the witnesses’] biases and incentives\\nto testify adversely to Trent, the court did not offend the core\\nvalues of the Confrontation Clause.”). As in Trent, the district\\ncourt’s limitation did not significantly impact Hunter and Ev‐\\nans’ ability to cross‐examine adverse witnesses.\\n C. Hunter’s Pro Se Arguments Do Not Prevail\\n Despite Hunter’s representation by counsel, we also au‐\\nthorized him to present several arguments in an additional,\\n\\fNos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044 17\\n\\npro se brief. “Although there is no Sixth Amendment right to\\nfile a pro se brief when the appellant is represented by counsel,\\nnothing precludes an appellate court from accepting the pro\\nse brief and considering the arguments contained therein for\\nwhatever they may be worth.” Hayes v. Hawes, 921 F.2d 100,\\n102 (7th Cir. 1990) (per curiam). Although sometimes author‐\\nized (as here), the filing of pro se briefs by a defendant who is\\nrepresented by counsel is generally unhelpful. We consider\\nHunter’s remaining, pro se arguments in turn.\\n 1. The District Court Made Proper Evidentiary Rulings\\n Hunter, pro se, raises challenges to several evidentiary rul‐\\nings made by the district court. “We review the admission of\\nevidence for an abuse of discretion and ‘will reverse an evi‐\\ndentiary ruling only when the record contains no evidence on\\nwhich the district court rationally could have based its rul‐\\ning.’” United States v. Quiroz, 874 F.3d 562, 569 (7th Cir. 2017)\\n(quoting United States v. Gorman, 613 F.3d 711, 717 (7th Cir.\\n2010)).\\n First, Hunter believes that the district court should have\\nexcluded Brown’s testimony because she was a “biased” wit‐\\nness. Earlier we mentioned that Brown’s son and fiancé were\\ndefendants in the case who pled guilty and agreed to testify\\nagainst Hunter and Evans. To support this argument, Hunter\\ncites United States v. Abel, 469 U.S. 45, 53 (1984). However, Abel\\nestablished that evidence of membership in a prison gang\\ncould be introduced to impeach a witness because it was pro‐\\nbative of witness bias, not that biased witness testimony could\\nnever be admitted. Id. Indeed, the Court in Abel specifically\\nvalidated exposing witness bias as an acceptable means of im‐\\npeachment under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Id. at 51. And\\nHunter’s counsel exposed Brown’s relationship to two of the\\n\\f18 Nos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044\\n\\ngovernment’s cooperating witnesses and her potential bias on\\ncross‐examination. We therefore find no error in allowing\\nBrown’s testimony.\\n Second, Hunter challenges another portion of Brown’s\\ntrial testimony on hearsay grounds. At trial, Brown testified\\nto overhearing Hunter discuss details of the Walgreen’s rob‐\\nbery in her kitchen. Over defense counsel’s objection, the dis‐\\ntrict court agreed with the government that that the testimony\\nfell into the hearsay exception for a statement by a party op‐\\nponent. Fed. R. Evid. 801. We agree. The Rule provides that\\nstatements made by a party in an individual capacity that are\\nlater offered against him are not hearsay. Fed. R. Evid.\\n801(d)(2)(A). Hunter attempts to rely on United States v. El‐\\nMezain for the proposition that “a witness’s testimony must\\nbe based on personal knowledge.” 664 F.3d 467, 495 (5th Cir.\\n2011). He claims that because Brown testified that she learned\\nof the Walgreens robbery from the news, she did not base her\\ntestimony about his involvement in the robbery on personal\\nknowledge. Hunter’s argument misses the point. Brown’s tes‐\\ntimony centered on her personal knowledge of what she\\nheard Hunter say, and those things are admissible as non‐\\nhearsay statements by a party opponent. Jordan v. Binns, 712\\nF.3d 1123, 1128–29 (7th Cir. 2013) (“There are only two re‐\\nquirements for admissibility under FRE 801(d)(2)(A): a state‐\\nment was made by a party, and the statement was offered\\nagainst that party.”).\\n Hunter similarly objects to testimony given by Kelly Scott,\\none of the co‐defendants who cooperated with the govern‐\\nment. Like Brown, Hunter believes Scott was a biased witness,\\nbut this complaint fails for the same reason. Hunter and Evans\\nmade Scott’s cooperation with the government an issue at\\n\\fNos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044 19\\n\\ntrial, suggesting that Scott’s reward for cooperating—a re‐\\nduced sentence—motivated him to fabricate his testimony\\nagainst them. Attempting to rehabilitate Scott, the govern‐\\nment asked him whether he had anything to fear by cooper‐\\nating and testifying. Scott mentioned that someone had hit\\nhim over the head in jail. The district court overruled the de‐\\nfense’s objection for relevance. Scott also testified that he over‐\\nheard Hunter and Evans discussing the case and making\\nthreats against him in a holding area during the trial.\\n Hunter claims that the district court should have excluded\\nthis testimony as irrelevant and characterizes it as highly prej‐\\nudicial to the jury. We previously have held that evidence of\\nthreats by a defendant against a prosecution witness on direct\\nexamination is inadmissible unless it is linked to a specific\\ncredibility issue at trial—like a witness’s behavior on the\\nstand or testimony that is inconsistent with prior statements.\\nSee United States v. Thomas, 86 F.3d 647, 654 (7th Cir. 1996);\\nUnited States v. Thompson, 359 F.3d 470, 477 (7th Cir. 2004). In‐\\ndeed, Thomas and Thompson each rejected efforts to use threats\\nagainst a witness to generally “bolster” or “boost” a witness’s\\ncredibility. However, we have also held that “[o]nce a wit‐\\nness’s credibility has been attacked…the non‐attacking party\\nis permitted to admit evidence to ‘rehabilitate’ the witness.”\\nUnited States v. Lindemann, 85 F.3d 1232, 1242 (7th Cir. 1996).\\nWe have explained that the government may introduce testi‐\\nmony about a witness’s motives on direct examination when\\nsuch testimony is rehabilitative and likely to give the jury a\\nfull picture. United States v. McKinney, 954 F.2d 471, 479 (7th\\nCir. 1992).\\n Hunter’s defense counsel aggressively challenged the in‐\\ntegrity of the government’s witnesses from the trial’s start and\\n\\f20 Nos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044\\n\\nvigorously cross‐examined them about their motivations to\\nlie. With respect to Scott, defense counsel thoroughly walked\\nthrough Scott’s inconsistent statements, criminal history, and\\nhis belief that lying to the police is occasionally permissible.\\nThe threats occurred in the midst of and in response to Scott’s\\ndecision to testify for the government, so they were relevant\\nto his testimony and credibility. In this context, we cannot\\nagree that the district court abused its discretion by allowing\\nScott to testify to the adverse consequences of his cooperation.\\nSee id. (“Whether the potential for unfair prejudice of a given\\npiece of evidence outweighs its probative value is a decision\\nleft to the district court’s discretion.”).\\n Accordingly, we find no errors in the district court’s evi‐\\ndentiary rulings.\\n Hunter also claims that Dominique Rollins gave “false tes‐\\ntimony” on the government’s behalf. A defendant who\\n“seek[s] a new trial based on perjured testimony has the bur‐\\nden to show that (1) the prosecution’s case included perjured\\ntestimony; (2) the prosecution knew, or should have known,\\nof the perjury; and (3) there is a likelihood that the false testi‐\\nmony affected the judgment of the jury.” United States v.\\nCosby, 924 F.3d 329, 336 (7th Cir. 2019) (citation and internal\\nquotation omitted). Hunter points to confusion and seeming\\ncontradictions in Rollins’ testimony to support this claim. But\\neven if Rollins gave confused testimony, Hunter fails to point\\nto convincing evidence of perjury, much less perjury that the\\ngovernment knowingly proffered. We therefore conclude that\\nthis claim also fails.\\n 2. The Lack of a Curative Instruction for Investigator\\n Strasser’s Limited Testimony Was No Error\\n\\fNos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044 21\\n\\n Hunter believes that the district court should have admin‐\\nistered a curative instruction to the jury advising it to disre‐\\ngard a portion of Strasser’s trial testimony. The defense ob‐\\njected to Strasser’s testimony on the grounds that the govern‐\\nment never designated him as an expert or summary witness.\\nThe district court sustained the defense’s objections and de‐\\ntermined that Strasser could only testify to evidence in the\\ncase that he personally worked on or developed. However,\\nbefore the objection, Strasser testified that he had viewed hun‐\\ndreds of examples of robbery footage and that generally crim‐\\ninals use the same tactics in each robbery. In his pro se brief,\\nHunter claims that the district court should have issued a cu‐\\nrative instruction to advise the jury to disregard Strasser’s\\nbrief, pre‐objection testimony. The defense did not request a\\ncurative instruction at the time. Reviewing this on a plain er‐\\nror standard, Hunter’s argument fails. United States v. Chris‐\\ntian, 673 F.3d 702, 708 (7th Cir. 2012) (plain error requires that\\nabsent the error, the defendant probably would not have been\\nconvicted). Strasser’s brief comments before the objection\\nprovided little information and could not have significantly\\nprejudiced Hunter.\\n 3. The Government Presented Sufficient Evidence to Support\\n Hunter’s Convictions\\n Hunter argues that the government failed to offer evi‐\\ndence to prove every element of his conviction under the\\nHobbs Act, which criminalizes robbery or extortion that af‐\\nfects commerce. See 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a). Hunter specifically\\nclaims that the government failed to prove that the robberies\\naffected interstate commerce. However, the government only\\nneeds to show a de minimis effect on interstate commerce.\\nUnited States v. Bailey, 227 F.3d 792, 797 (7th Cir. 2000). Here,\\n\\f22 Nos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044\\n\\nthe parties stipulated that the Roman’s Food Market and the\\nGeorge Webb restaurant were businesses engaged in inter‐\\nstate commerce. Hunter was involved in robbing both stores,\\nwhich temporarily shut down after the robberies. Therefore,\\nthe government provided sufficient evidence to satisfy the\\n“affects commerce” element of the Act.\\n Hunter lastly argues that the government produced insuf‐\\nficient evidence to satisfy the mens rea element for the car jack‐\\nings. Under 18 U.S.C. § 2119, a defendant must “inten[d] to\\ncause death or serious bodily harm.” Given the defendants’\\naffinity for pistol‐whipping their victims, we find it hard to\\nsee the basis for this argument. We previously explained that\\nthe defendant need not actually attempt to kill or harm the\\nvictim, but rather must possess a “conditional intent to do the\\ndriver harm had he not complied with the defendants’ de‐\\nmands.” United States v Jones, 188 F.3d 773, 777 (7th Cir. 1999).\\nThe Cadillac’s driver testified that the two men who carjacked\\nhim forced him to the ground and struck him in the back of\\nthe head with a gun. With respect to the Ford Focus, the vic‐\\ntim testified that Hunter pressed a firearm into his stomach\\nand took his possessions, including his car. The government\\nprovided evidence that both instances involved threats\\nbacked by a deadly weapon. One instance involved serious\\nphysical harm. The government provided sufficient evidence\\nto establish the mens rea.\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district\\ncourt is AFFIRMED.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3786,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4645615,"string":"4,645,615"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Michael Campos v. Cook County"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-08-05"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-3472"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before KANNE, SYKES, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"Michael Stephen Kanne\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-3472\\nMICHAEL O. CAMPOS,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n v.\\n\\nCOOK COUNTY, et al.,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 18-cv-2305 — Charles R. Norgle, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED MAY 29, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 5, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before KANNE, SYKES, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\\n KANNE, Circuit Judge. After Michael Campos’s August\\n2011 arrest for driving under the influence, his employer—the\\nCook County Sheriff’s Office—began termination proceed-\\nings. The Merit Board has voted to terminate Campos’s em-\\nployment on two occasions. But both times the Cook County\\nCircuit Court vacated the decision. And, to this day, the ter-\\nmination proceedings are ongoing. Instead of waiting for\\ntheir completion, Campos filed this federal law suit alleging,\\n\\f2 No. 18-3472\\n\\namong other things, that the protracted proceedings have vi-\\nolated his substantive due process rights. Because Campos\\nhas not met the high standard for stating a substantive due\\nprocess claim, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of his\\nclaims.\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n In 1997, Michael Campos began working for the Cook\\nCounty Sheriff’s Office as a correctional officer. In August\\n2011, he was arrested for driving under the influence, striking\\na vehicle, and leaving the scene of an accident. Campos self-\\nreported the incident, and the sheriff suspended him without\\npay on November 29, 2011, and referred him for termination.\\nBy law, the Cook County Sheriff’s Merit Board has exclusive\\nauthority to terminate Sheriff’s Office employees. 55 Ill.\\nComp. Stat. 5/3-7012.\\n While the Merit Board proceedings were ongoing, the\\nCook County Circuit Court granted Campos’s motion to sup-\\npress and quashed his arrest. On October 15, 2015, the Merit\\nBoard voted to terminate Campos for violating state law. He\\npetitioned the circuit court for review approximately one year\\nlater. On January 18, 2017, the circuit court granted Campos’s\\npetition, vacated the Merit Board’s decision as too vague to\\nallow for judicial review, and remanded for a second attempt.\\n In April 2017, the Merit Board once again voted to termi-\\nnate Campos. He sought judicial review. And on March 9,\\n2018, the circuit court vacated and remanded a second time.\\nBut this time, the court vacated the Merit Board’s decision not\\nbecause of some defect in the reasoning but because of a de-\\nfect in the Merit Board’s composition.\\n\\fNo. 18-3472 3\\n\\n The circuit court relied upon a developing line of cases in-\\nvolving interim appointments to the Merit Board. In Taylor v.\\nDart, the Illinois Appellate Court found that the Merit Board\\nAct does not permit the sheriff to appoint Merit Board mem-\\nbers to terms of fewer than six years. 64 N.E.3d 123, 130 (Il.\\nApp. Ct. 2016) (citing 55 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/3–7002). Because\\none member of the Merit Board was serving an interim term\\nwhen the Board voted to terminate the plaintiff, the Taylor\\ncourt held that the decision was void. Id. at 132. The circuit\\ncourt found that the reasoning in Taylor applied with equal\\nforce to Campos. When the Merit Board voted to terminate\\nhim, one member was serving an interim term. 1\\n At this point, it had been almost seven years since the sher-\\niff suspended Campos without pay. Rather than wait for a\\nthird Merit Board decision, he filed suit in federal court. Cam-\\npos’s initial complaint—filed on March 29, 2018—named\\neighteen defendants and advanced five claims. Besides suing\\nCook County, the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office, the\\nsheriff, the Merit Board, and the Board’s members, he also\\nsued the law firm Steptoe and Johnson, LLP, and three of its\\nattorneys (who represented the county in the circuit court\\nproceedings). On May 2, 2018, the Steptoe defendants filed a\\nmotion to dismiss the claims against them. The district court\\nscheduled a hearing on the motion for May 11, 2018.\\n On May 10, Campos filed an amended complaint in which\\nhe renewed his claims against all defendants (except the Cook\\n\\n\\n 1 After Taylor, the Illinois General Assembly amended the Merit Board\\n\\nAct to allow the sheriff to make interim appointments. 55 Ill. Comp. Stat.\\n5/3-7002 (as amended effective Dec. 8, 2017). The sheriff has now reconsti-\\ntuted the Board, correcting the problem identified in Taylor.\\n\\f4 No. 18-3472\\n\\nCounty State’s Attorney’s Office) and added a sixth claim (for\\nFirst Amendment retaliation). The district court held the al-\\nready-scheduled hearing the next day. When plaintiff’s coun-\\nsel advised the court that he had filed an amended complaint\\nthe day before, the court noted that it had not granted leave\\nto file an amended complaint. The court referred to the Local\\nRules for the Northern District of Illinois and concluded that\\nthe original complaint remained the operative document. See\\nN.D. Ill. L.R. 5.3(b) (“Every motion or objection shall be ac-\\ncompanied by a notice of presentment specifying the date and\\ntime on which, and judge before whom, the motion or objec-\\ntion is to be presented.”). After that finding, the court dis-\\nmissed the Steptoe defendants with prejudice.\\n Several months later, the remaining defendants filed a mo-\\ntion to dismiss the amended complaint. On November 5, 2018,\\nthe court granted that motion and dismissed the amended\\ncomplaint with prejudice. Campos appealed.\\n II. ANALYSIS\\n We review the dismissal of a complaint for failure to state\\na claim de novo. Kanter v. Barr, 919 F.3d 437, 440 (7th Cir. 2019).\\nCampos’s amended complaint advances two substantive due\\nprocess claims, three conspiracy claims, and one First Amend-\\nment retaliation claim. Oddly, Campos does not bring a pro-\\ncedural due process claim, focusing instead on substantive\\ndue process. He does suggest that his conspiracy claims might\\nbe either substantive or procedural, but a plaintiff cannot\\nbring a § 1983 claim for conspiracy to deny a civil right unless\\nthe plaintiff states an underlying claim for denial of a right.\\nArcher v. Chisholm, 870 F.3d 603, 620 (7th Cir. 2017). Section\\n1983 conspiracy claims are derivative; they cannot stand\\nalone. In other words, because he has alleged no underlying\\n\\fNo. 18-3472 5\\n\\nprocedural due process violation, his conspiracy claims can-\\nnot be procedural in nature.\\n Accordingly, we limit our analysis to whether Campos has\\nstated substantive due process claims. For the reasons that fol-\\nlow, he has not. And, although Campos spends considerable\\ntime discussing recent decisions by the Illinois appellate\\ncourts which limit Taylor’s impact, we find this line of argu-\\nment to be a red herring. Because Campos did not state cog-\\nnizable claims, the district court properly dismissed with prej-\\nudice.\\n A. Campos Did Not State Substantive Due Process Claims\\n “[T]he scope of substantive due process is very limited.”\\nTun v. Whitticker, 398 F.3d 899, 902 (7th Cir. 2005) (citing Wash-\\nington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997)). And courts should\\nbe “reluctant to expand the concept of substantive due pro-\\ncess because guideposts for responsible decisionmaking in\\nthis unchartered area are scarce and open-ended.” Collins v.\\nCity of Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 125 (1992). Given its slip-\\npery nature, the requirements for stating a substantive due\\nprocess claim are similarly vague. A plaintiff must allege that\\nthe government violated a fundamental right or liberty.\\nGlucksberg, 521 U.S. at 720; Belcher v. Norton, 497 F.3d 742, 753\\n(7th Cir. 2007). And that violation must have been arbitrary\\nand irrational. Cty. of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 845\\n(1998); Idris v. City of Chicago, 552 F.3d 564, 566 (7th Cir. 2009).\\nSubstantive due process protects against only the most egre-\\ngious and outrageous government action. See Lewis, 523 U.S.\\nat 845; Belcher, 497 F.3d at 753 (7th Cir. 2007).\\n “[E]mployment-related rights are not fundamental.” Palka\\nv. Shelton, 623 F.3d 447, 453 (7th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, a\\n\\f6 No. 18-3472\\n\\npublic employee alleging wrongful termination cannot state a\\nsubstantive due process claim “unless the employee also al-\\nleges the defendants violated some other constitutional right\\nor that state remedies were inadequate.” Id. (citing Montgom-\\nery v. Stefaniak, 410 F.3d 933, 939 (7th Cir. 2005)). Thus, to state\\na claim, Campos must allege that the defendants deprived\\nhim of a state-created property interest by arbitrary and irra-\\ntional conduct and that the defendants either committed a\\nseparate constitutional violation or state law remedies are in-\\nadequate. Galdikas v. Fagan, 342 F.3d 684, 691 (7th Cir. 2003),\\nabrogated on other grounds by Spiegla v. Hull, 371 F.3d 928 (7th\\nCir. 2004).\\n Campos spends considerable time arguing that he pos-\\nsesses a property interest in continued employment. The de-\\nfendants do not deny he does, and we assume the same. The\\ndispositive question is whether Campos’s allegations satisfy\\nthe remaining elements.\\n To begin with, Campos hasn’t alleged an independent\\nconstitutional violation. He seems to contend that “[h]is prop-\\nerty interest was the other constitutional right.” But the exist-\\nence of a property right is a predicate to a due process claim.\\nHudson v. City of Chicago, 374 F.3d 554, 559 (7th Cir. 2004).\\nCampos’s alleged property interest in his employment satis-\\nfies one element of his due process claim, but it doesn’t con-\\nstitute an independent constitutional claim on its own.\\n On appeal, Campos makes no mention of the First Amend-\\nment retaliation claim which he alleged in his amended com-\\nplaint. Accordingly, he has waived any challenge to the dis-\\ntrict court’s dismissal of that claim. Puffer v. Allstate Ins. Co.,\\n675 F.3d 709, 718 (7th Cir. 2012). Campos does make several\\nopaque references to “stigma-plus claims” in his opening\\n\\fNo. 18-3472 7\\n\\nbrief. But he never explains what he means by that term, much\\nless cite any cases articulating the elements of the claim or\\nclearly identifying the facts which might support its applica-\\ntion here. 2 Campos has waived this underdeveloped argu-\\nment. Id. Accordingly, Campos has not identified any inde-\\npendent constitutional violations which might support his\\nsubstantive due process claim.\\n Campos also argues that the protracted state court pro-\\nceedings demonstrate the inadequacy of his state law reme-\\ndies. He cites to cases which establish that public employers\\nmust provide tenured employees with a timely and meaning-\\nful hearing before termination. See, e.g., Cleveland Bd. of Educ.\\nv. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 541 (1985); Hudson, 374 F.3d at 559.\\nBut these cases discuss the minimum procedural due process\\nrequirements for terminating public employees. Campos has\\nalleged substantive due process violations.\\n Campos’s allegations fall short. To begin with, his state\\ncourt remedies have, in fact, been effective. He’s twice con-\\nvinced the circuit court to vacate the Merit Board’s decision.\\nThe fact that the circuit court identified problems in both\\nMerit Board decisions doesn’t show that the Merit Board\\n\\n2 In his reply brief, Campos finally unveils the basis for this mysterious\\n“stigma-plus” claim. He seems to mean what we’ve referred to as an “oc-\\ncupational-liberty claim.” See Palka, 623 F.3d at 454 (“An occupational-lib-\\nerty claim may arise when, after an adverse employment action, a public\\nemployer stigmatizes the employee by making public comments impugn-\\ning his good name, honor, or reputation or imposes a stigma that fore-\\ncloses other employment opportunities.”). This is too little, too late. Parties\\nwaive arguments which they develop for the first time in a reply brief.\\nHarris v. Warrick Cty. Sheriff's Dep’t, 666 F.3d 444, 448 (7th Cir. 2012)\\n\\f8 No. 18-3472\\n\\nprocedures are inadequate—it demonstrates that the review\\nprocess has worked. See Palka, 623 F.3d at 453 (holding that\\nthe Merit Board disciplinary process satisfies Cook County’s\\nprocedural due process obligation).\\n Of course, the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees Cam-\\npos an opportunity to be heard regarding his termination “at\\na meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” Logan v.\\nZimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422, 437 (1982) (quoting Arm-\\nstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965)). Eventually, justice\\ndelayed is justice denied. See Schroeder v. City of Chicago, 927\\nF.2d 957, 960 (7th Cir. 1991) (“[A]t some point delay must\\nripen into deprivation, because otherwise a suit alleging dep-\\nrivation would be forever premature.”). And almost eight\\nyears have elapsed since the sheriff first suspended Campos.\\n But there is no bright-line rule for determining when pro-\\ntracted review proceedings run afoul of due process. See\\nMathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976) (explaining that\\ncourts identify due process requirements by carefully weigh-\\ning the relevant interests). And state law remedies fail to sat-\\nisfy due process only when they are “meaningless or nonex-\\nistent.” Michalowicz v. Vill. of Bedford Park, 528 F.3d 530, 535\\n(7th Cir. 2008) (rejecting a procedural due process claim\\nbrought by a terminated firefighter) (quoting Easter House v.\\nFelder, 910 F.2d 1387, 1406 (7th Cir. 1990)). We do not opine on\\nwhether the lengthy termination process satisfies Campos’s\\nprocedural due process rights (though we do note that federal\\nlawsuits often pend for several years, especially if remanded\\nto the district court). See Easter House, 910 F.2d at 1406\\n(“[A]lmost all litigation, whether conducted in a state or fed-\\neral forum, may be characterized as a lengthy and speculative\\n\\fNo. 18-3472 9\\n\\nprocess.”). But the eight-year process is certainly not so arbi-\\ntrary or outrageous as to violate substantive due process. 3\\n We offer no opinion regarding when delays in reaching a\\nfinal adjudication might offend procedural due process. We\\nmerely find that the convoluted proceedings here are evi-\\ndence that Campos has received repeated—and efficacious—\\nopportunities to challenge his termination. The district court\\nproperly dismissed Campos’s due process and conspiracy\\nclaims.\\n B. The District Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion By Dismiss-\\ning Campos’s Claims With Prejudice\\n Finally, Campos argues that the district court erred when\\nit dismissed his claims with prejudice. We review that deci-\\nsion for abuse of discretion. Haywood v. Massage Envy Fran-\\nchising, LLC, 887 F.3d 329, 335 (7th Cir. 2018). The court cer-\\ntainly did not err when it dismissed Campos’s amended com-\\nplaint with prejudice. For the reasons we’ve just articulated,\\n\\n 3 We note, briefly, that post-Taylor developments in Illinois law do not\\n\\naffect our analysis (despite Campos’s arguments to the contrary). In Lopez\\nv. Dart, the Illinois appellate court applied the de facto officer doctrine—\\nwhich confers validity on acts performed by a person acting under color\\nof title even if a later defect in his or her appointment comes to light—to\\nMerit Board decisions. 118 N.E.3d 580, 591, 595 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). Ac-\\ncordingly, only the first challenger may invalidate the agency decision.\\nThe Illinois court of appeals issued Lopez after the circuit court vacated the\\nsecond Merit Board decision in Campos’s case. The district court observed\\nthat this decision may have been erroneous (and the County has asked the\\ncircuit court for reconsideration). Naturally, Campos disagrees. He argues\\nthat de facto officers can still commit constitutional violations. That’s un-\\ndoubtedly true but ultimately irrelevant because he hasn’t stated a claim.\\nWe, of course, offer no opinion regarding the proper resolution of Cam-\\npos’s appeal before the circuit court.\\n\\f10 No. 18-3472\\n\\nCampos did not state claims upon which relief could be\\nbased, and a district court need not grant leave to amend if\\nthere doesn’t seem to be a plausible way to cure the defects.\\nGonzalez-Koeneke v. West, 791 F.3d 801, 808 (7th Cir. 2015).\\n We are slightly more concerned about the district court’s\\ndismissal of the Steptoe defendants (back in May 2018). That\\ndismissal came after Campos filed an amended complaint as\\nof right (as permitted by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure\\n15(a)(B)) but before defendants filed a motion to dismiss that\\nnew complaint. At the May 11, 2018, hearing, the district court\\nsuggested that the amended complaint wasn’t properly filed\\nbecause it hadn’t been “presented,” as required by the Local\\nRules. N.D. Ill. L.R. 5.3(b) (“Every motion or objection shall be\\naccompanied by a notice of presentment specifying the date\\nand time on which, and judge before whom, the motion or\\nobjection is to be presented.”).\\n Local Rule 5.3(b) applies only to motions or objections,\\nand an amended complaint filed as of right is neither. The dis-\\ntrict court thus dismissed the Steptoe defendants sua sponte\\nand without considering the facts alleged against them in the\\noperative complaint.\\n If Campos could conceivably state a claim against the\\nSteptoe attorneys, we would remand. But § 1983 plaintiffs can\\nsue private attorneys for constitutional violations only if they\\nwere “engaged in a conspiracy with state officials to deprive\\nanother of federal rights.” Tower v. Glover, 467 U.S. 914, 920\\n(1984). And given Campos’s failure to state any underlying\\nconstitutional claims, he hasn’t alleged any conspiracy be-\\ntween the Steptoe defendants and county defendants. Ac-\\ncordingly, remand would be futile. See Shockley v. Jones, 823\\nF.2d 1068, 1073 (7th Cir. 1987) (explaining that the court\\n\\fNo. 18-3472 11\\n\\nimproperly dismissed the complaint sua sponte but finding\\nthat remand would be futile because his proposed amended\\ncomplaint did not state a claim either); Baker v. Dir., U.S. Pa-\\nrole Comm’n, 916 F.2d 725, 726 (D.C. Cir. 1990).\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n The Cook County Sheriff referred Campos for termination\\nin 2011, and the proceedings are still pending to this day. But\\nthe lengthy review process demonstrates Campos’s success in\\nattacking the Merit Board’s decisions, not the inadequacy of\\nthe state remedies. The doctrine of substantive due process\\ndoes not guarantee expeditious review; it merely protects fun-\\ndamental rights from government deprivation by arbitrary\\nand outrageous conduct. He doesn’t allege any such conduct\\nhere. AFFIRMED.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4422868/\", \"author_raw\": \"Michael Stephen Kanne\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"KANNE"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"SYKES"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"BRENNAN"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"KANNE\": \", Circuit\", \"SYKES\": \", Circuit\", \"BRENNAN\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645615/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":8,"string":"8"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Michael Campos v. Cook County\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-08-05\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-3472\nMICHAEL O. CAMPOS,\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\n v.\n\nCOOK COUNTY, et al.,\n Defendants-Appellees.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\n No. 18-cv-2305 — Charles R. Norgle, Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED MAY 29, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 5, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before KANNE, SYKES, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\n KANNE, Circuit Judge. After Michael Campos’s August\n2011 arrest for driving under the influence, his employer—the\nCook County Sheriff’s Office—began termination proceed-\nings. The Merit Board has voted to terminate Campos’s em-\nployment on two occasions. But both times the Cook County\nCircuit Court vacated the decision. And, to this day, the ter-\nmination proceedings are ongoing. Instead of waiting for\ntheir completion, Campos filed this federal law suit alleging,\n\f2 No. 18-3472\n\namong other things, that the protracted proceedings have vi-\nolated his substantive due process rights. Because Campos\nhas not met the high standard for stating a substantive due\nprocess claim, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of his\nclaims.\n I. BACKGROUND\n In 1997, Michael Campos began working for the Cook\nCounty Sheriff’s Office as a correctional officer. In August\n2011, he was arrested for driving under the influence, striking\na vehicle, and leaving the scene of an accident. Campos self-\nreported the incident, and the sheriff suspended him without\npay on November 29, 2011, and referred him for termination.\nBy law, the Cook County Sheriff’s Merit Board has exclusive\nauthority to terminate Sheriff’s Office employees. 55 Ill.\nComp. Stat. 5/3-7012.\n While the Merit Board proceedings were ongoing, the\nCook County Circuit Court granted Campos’s motion to sup-\npress and quashed his arrest. On October 15, 2015, the Merit\nBoard voted to terminate Campos for violating state law. He\npetitioned the circuit court for review approximately one year\nlater. On January 18, 2017, the circuit court granted Campos’s\npetition, vacated the Merit Board’s decision as too vague to\nallow for judicial review, and remanded for a second attempt.\n In April 2017, the Merit Board once again voted to termi-\nnate Campos. He sought judicial review. And on March 9,\n2018, the circuit court vacated and remanded a second time.\nBut this time, the court vacated the Merit Board’s decision not\nbecause of some defect in the reasoning but because of a de-\nfect in the Merit Board’s composition.\n\fNo. 18-3472 3\n\n The circuit court relied upon a developing line of cases in-\nvolving interim appointments to the Merit Board. In Taylor v.\nDart, the Illinois Appellate Court found that the Merit Board\nAct does not permit the sheriff to appoint Merit Board mem-\nbers to terms of fewer than six years. 64 N.E.3d 123, 130 (Il.\nApp. Ct. 2016) (citing 55 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/3–7002). Because\none member of the Merit Board was serving an interim term\nwhen the Board voted to terminate the plaintiff, the Taylor\ncourt held that the decision was void. Id. at 132. The circuit\ncourt found that the reasoning in Taylor applied with equal\nforce to Campos. When the Merit Board voted to terminate\nhim, one member was serving an interim term. 1\n At this point, it had been almost seven years since the sher-\niff suspended Campos without pay. Rather than wait for a\nthird Merit Board decision, he filed suit in federal court. Cam-\npos’s initial complaint—filed on March 29, 2018—named\neighteen defendants and advanced five claims. Besides suing\nCook County, the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office, the\nsheriff, the Merit Board, and the Board’s members, he also\nsued the law firm Steptoe and Johnson, LLP, and three of its\nattorneys (who represented the county in the circuit court\nproceedings). On May 2, 2018, the Steptoe defendants filed a\nmotion to dismiss the claims against them. The district court\nscheduled a hearing on the motion for May 11, 2018.\n On May 10, Campos filed an amended complaint in which\nhe renewed his claims against all defendants (except the Cook\n\n\n 1 After Taylor, the Illinois General Assembly amended the Merit Board\n\nAct to allow the sheriff to make interim appointments. 55 Ill. Comp. Stat.\n5/3-7002 (as amended effective Dec. 8, 2017). The sheriff has now reconsti-\ntuted the Board, correcting the problem identified in Taylor.\n\f4 No. 18-3472\n\nCounty State’s Attorney’s Office) and added a sixth claim (for\nFirst Amendment retaliation). The district court held the al-\nready-scheduled hearing the next day. When plaintiff’s coun-\nsel advised the court that he had filed an amended complaint\nthe day before, the court noted that it had not granted leave\nto file an amended complaint. The court referred to the Local\nRules for the Northern District of Illinois and concluded that\nthe original complaint remained the operative document. See\nN.D. Ill. L.R. 5.3(b) (“Every motion or objection shall be ac-\ncompanied by a notice of presentment specifying the date and\ntime on which, and judge before whom, the motion or objec-\ntion is to be presented.”). After that finding, the court dis-\nmissed the Steptoe defendants with prejudice.\n Several months later, the remaining defendants filed a mo-\ntion to dismiss the amended complaint. On November 5, 2018,\nthe court granted that motion and dismissed the amended\ncomplaint with prejudice. Campos appealed.\n II. ANALYSIS\n We review the dismissal of a complaint for failure to state\na claim de novo. Kanter v. Barr, 919 F.3d 437, 440 (7th Cir. 2019).\nCampos’s amended complaint advances two substantive due\nprocess claims, three conspiracy claims, and one First Amend-\nment retaliation claim. Oddly, Campos does not bring a pro-\ncedural due process claim, focusing instead on substantive\ndue process. He does suggest that his conspiracy claims might\nbe either substantive or procedural, but a plaintiff cannot\nbring a § 1983 claim for conspiracy to deny a civil right unless\nthe plaintiff states an underlying claim for denial of a right.\nArcher v. Chisholm, 870 F.3d 603, 620 (7th Cir. 2017). Section\n1983 conspiracy claims are derivative; they cannot stand\nalone. In other words, because he has alleged no underlying\n\fNo. 18-3472 5\n\nprocedural due process violation, his conspiracy claims can-\nnot be procedural in nature.\n Accordingly, we limit our analysis to whether Campos has\nstated substantive due process claims. For the reasons that fol-\nlow, he has not. And, although Campos spends considerable\ntime discussing recent decisions by the Illinois appellate\ncourts which limit Taylor’s impact, we find this line of argu-\nment to be a red herring. Because Campos did not state cog-\nnizable claims, the district court properly dismissed with prej-\nudice.\n A. Campos Did Not State Substantive Due Process Claims\n “[T]he scope of substantive due process is very limited.”\nTun v. Whitticker, 398 F.3d 899, 902 (7th Cir. 2005) (citing Wash-\nington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997)). And courts should\nbe “reluctant to expand the concept of substantive due pro-\ncess because guideposts for responsible decisionmaking in\nthis unchartered area are scarce and open-ended.” Collins v.\nCity of Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 125 (1992). Given its slip-\npery nature, the requirements for stating a substantive due\nprocess claim are similarly vague. A plaintiff must allege that\nthe government violated a fundamental right or liberty.\nGlucksberg, 521 U.S. at 720; Belcher v. Norton, 497 F.3d 742, 753\n(7th Cir. 2007). And that violation must have been arbitrary\nand irrational. Cty. of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 845\n(1998); Idris v. City of Chicago, 552 F.3d 564, 566 (7th Cir. 2009).\nSubstantive due process protects against only the most egre-\ngious and outrageous government action. See Lewis, 523 U.S.\nat 845; Belcher, 497 F.3d at 753 (7th Cir. 2007).\n “[E]mployment-related rights are not fundamental.” Palka\nv. Shelton, 623 F.3d 447, 453 (7th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, a\n\f6 No. 18-3472\n\npublic employee alleging wrongful termination cannot state a\nsubstantive due process claim “unless the employee also al-\nleges the defendants violated some other constitutional right\nor that state remedies were inadequate.” Id. (citing Montgom-\nery v. Stefaniak, 410 F.3d 933, 939 (7th Cir. 2005)). Thus, to state\na claim, Campos must allege that the defendants deprived\nhim of a state-created property interest by arbitrary and irra-\ntional conduct and that the defendants either committed a\nseparate constitutional violation or state law remedies are in-\nadequate. Galdikas v. Fagan, 342 F.3d 684, 691 (7th Cir. 2003),\nabrogated on other grounds by Spiegla v. Hull, 371 F.3d 928 (7th\nCir. 2004).\n Campos spends considerable time arguing that he pos-\nsesses a property interest in continued employment. The de-\nfendants do not deny he does, and we assume the same. The\ndispositive question is whether Campos’s allegations satisfy\nthe remaining elements.\n To begin with, Campos hasn’t alleged an independent\nconstitutional violation. He seems to contend that “[h]is prop-\nerty interest was the other constitutional right.” But the exist-\nence of a property right is a predicate to a due process claim.\nHudson v. City of Chicago, 374 F.3d 554, 559 (7th Cir. 2004).\nCampos’s alleged property interest in his employment satis-\nfies one element of his due process claim, but it doesn’t con-\nstitute an independent constitutional claim on its own.\n On appeal, Campos makes no mention of the First Amend-\nment retaliation claim which he alleged in his amended com-\nplaint. Accordingly, he has waived any challenge to the dis-\ntrict court’s dismissal of that claim. Puffer v. Allstate Ins. Co.,\n675 F.3d 709, 718 (7th Cir. 2012). Campos does make several\nopaque references to “stigma-plus claims” in his opening\n\fNo. 18-3472 7\n\nbrief. But he never explains what he means by that term, much\nless cite any cases articulating the elements of the claim or\nclearly identifying the facts which might support its applica-\ntion here. 2 Campos has waived this underdeveloped argu-\nment. Id. Accordingly, Campos has not identified any inde-\npendent constitutional violations which might support his\nsubstantive due process claim.\n Campos also argues that the protracted state court pro-\nceedings demonstrate the inadequacy of his state law reme-\ndies. He cites to cases which establish that public employers\nmust provide tenured employees with a timely and meaning-\nful hearing before termination. See, e.g., Cleveland Bd. of Educ.\nv. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 541 (1985); Hudson, 374 F.3d at 559.\nBut these cases discuss the minimum procedural due process\nrequirements for terminating public employees. Campos has\nalleged substantive due process violations.\n Campos’s allegations fall short. To begin with, his state\ncourt remedies have, in fact, been effective. He’s twice con-\nvinced the circuit court to vacate the Merit Board’s decision.\nThe fact that the circuit court identified problems in both\nMerit Board decisions doesn’t show that the Merit Board\n\n2 In his reply brief, Campos finally unveils the basis for this mysterious\n“stigma-plus” claim. He seems to mean what we’ve referred to as an “oc-\ncupational-liberty claim.” See Palka, 623 F.3d at 454 (“An occupational-lib-\nerty claim may arise when, after an adverse employment action, a public\nemployer stigmatizes the employee by making public comments impugn-\ning his good name, honor, or reputation or imposes a stigma that fore-\ncloses other employment opportunities.”). This is too little, too late. Parties\nwaive arguments which they develop for the first time in a reply brief.\nHarris v. Warrick Cty. Sheriff's Dep’t, 666 F.3d 444, 448 (7th Cir. 2012)\n\f8 No. 18-3472\n\nprocedures are inadequate—it demonstrates that the review\nprocess has worked. See Palka, 623 F.3d at 453 (holding that\nthe Merit Board disciplinary process satisfies Cook County’s\nprocedural due process obligation).\n Of course, the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees Cam-\npos an opportunity to be heard regarding his termination “at\na meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” Logan v.\nZimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422, 437 (1982) (quoting Arm-\nstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965)). Eventually, justice\ndelayed is justice denied. See Schroeder v. City of Chicago, 927\nF.2d 957, 960 (7th Cir. 1991) (“[A]t some point delay must\nripen into deprivation, because otherwise a suit alleging dep-\nrivation would be forever premature.”). And almost eight\nyears have elapsed since the sheriff first suspended Campos.\n But there is no bright-line rule for determining when pro-\ntracted review proceedings run afoul of due process. See\nMathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976) (explaining that\ncourts identify due process requirements by carefully weigh-\ning the relevant interests). And state law remedies fail to sat-\nisfy due process only when they are “meaningless or nonex-\nistent.” Michalowicz v. Vill. of Bedford Park, 528 F.3d 530, 535\n(7th Cir. 2008) (rejecting a procedural due process claim\nbrought by a terminated firefighter) (quoting Easter House v.\nFelder, 910 F.2d 1387, 1406 (7th Cir. 1990)). We do not opine on\nwhether the lengthy termination process satisfies Campos’s\nprocedural due process rights (though we do note that federal\nlawsuits often pend for several years, especially if remanded\nto the district court). See Easter House, 910 F.2d at 1406\n(“[A]lmost all litigation, whether conducted in a state or fed-\neral forum, may be characterized as a lengthy and speculative\n\fNo. 18-3472 9\n\nprocess.”). But the eight-year process is certainly not so arbi-\ntrary or outrageous as to violate substantive due process. 3\n We offer no opinion regarding when delays in reaching a\nfinal adjudication might offend procedural due process. We\nmerely find that the convoluted proceedings here are evi-\ndence that Campos has received repeated—and efficacious—\nopportunities to challenge his termination. The district court\nproperly dismissed Campos’s due process and conspiracy\nclaims.\n B. The District Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion By Dismiss-\ning Campos’s Claims With Prejudice\n Finally, Campos argues that the district court erred when\nit dismissed his claims with prejudice. We review that deci-\nsion for abuse of discretion. Haywood v. Massage Envy Fran-\nchising, LLC, 887 F.3d 329, 335 (7th Cir. 2018). The court cer-\ntainly did not err when it dismissed Campos’s amended com-\nplaint with prejudice. For the reasons we’ve just articulated,\n\n 3 We note, briefly, that post-Taylor developments in Illinois law do not\n\naffect our analysis (despite Campos’s arguments to the contrary). In Lopez\nv. Dart, the Illinois appellate court applied the de facto officer doctrine—\nwhich confers validity on acts performed by a person acting under color\nof title even if a later defect in his or her appointment comes to light—to\nMerit Board decisions. 118 N.E.3d 580, 591, 595 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). Ac-\ncordingly, only the first challenger may invalidate the agency decision.\nThe Illinois court of appeals issued Lopez after the circuit court vacated the\nsecond Merit Board decision in Campos’s case. The district court observed\nthat this decision may have been erroneous (and the County has asked the\ncircuit court for reconsideration). Naturally, Campos disagrees. He argues\nthat de facto officers can still commit constitutional violations. That’s un-\ndoubtedly true but ultimately irrelevant because he hasn’t stated a claim.\nWe, of course, offer no opinion regarding the proper resolution of Cam-\npos’s appeal before the circuit court.\n\f10 No. 18-3472\n\nCampos did not state claims upon which relief could be\nbased, and a district court need not grant leave to amend if\nthere doesn’t seem to be a plausible way to cure the defects.\nGonzalez-Koeneke v. West, 791 F.3d 801, 808 (7th Cir. 2015).\n We are slightly more concerned about the district court’s\ndismissal of the Steptoe defendants (back in May 2018). That\ndismissal came after Campos filed an amended complaint as\nof right (as permitted by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure\n15(a)(B)) but before defendants filed a motion to dismiss that\nnew complaint. At the May 11, 2018, hearing, the district court\nsuggested that the amended complaint wasn’t properly filed\nbecause it hadn’t been “presented,” as required by the Local\nRules. N.D. Ill. L.R. 5.3(b) (“Every motion or objection shall be\naccompanied by a notice of presentment specifying the date\nand time on which, and judge before whom, the motion or\nobjection is to be presented.”).\n Local Rule 5.3(b) applies only to motions or objections,\nand an amended complaint filed as of right is neither. The dis-\ntrict court thus dismissed the Steptoe defendants sua sponte\nand without considering the facts alleged against them in the\noperative complaint.\n If Campos could conceivably state a claim against the\nSteptoe attorneys, we would remand. But § 1983 plaintiffs can\nsue private attorneys for constitutional violations only if they\nwere “engaged in a conspiracy with state officials to deprive\nanother of federal rights.” Tower v. Glover, 467 U.S. 914, 920\n(1984). And given Campos’s failure to state any underlying\nconstitutional claims, he hasn’t alleged any conspiracy be-\ntween the Steptoe defendants and county defendants. Ac-\ncordingly, remand would be futile. See Shockley v. Jones, 823\nF.2d 1068, 1073 (7th Cir. 1987) (explaining that the court\n\fNo. 18-3472 11\n\nimproperly dismissed the complaint sua sponte but finding\nthat remand would be futile because his proposed amended\ncomplaint did not state a claim either); Baker v. Dir., U.S. Pa-\nrole Comm’n, 916 F.2d 725, 726 (D.C. Cir. 1990).\n III. CONCLUSION\n The Cook County Sheriff referred Campos for termination\nin 2011, and the proceedings are still pending to this day. But\nthe lengthy review process demonstrates Campos’s success in\nattacking the Merit Board’s decisions, not the inadequacy of\nthe state remedies. The doctrine of substantive due process\ndoes not guarantee expeditious review; it merely protects fun-\ndamental rights from government deprivation by arbitrary\nand outrageous conduct. He doesn’t allege any such conduct\nhere. AFFIRMED.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Michael Campos v. Cook County\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-08-05\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-3472\\nMICHAEL O. CAMPOS,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n v.\\n\\nCOOK COUNTY, et al.,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 18-cv-2305 — Charles R. Norgle, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED MAY 29, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 5, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before KANNE, SYKES, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\\n KANNE, Circuit Judge. After Michael Campos’s August\\n2011 arrest for driving under the influence, his employer—the\\nCook County Sheriff’s Office—began termination proceed-\\nings. The Merit Board has voted to terminate Campos’s em-\\nployment on two occasions. But both times the Cook County\\nCircuit Court vacated the decision. And, to this day, the ter-\\nmination proceedings are ongoing. Instead of waiting for\\ntheir completion, Campos filed this federal law suit alleging,\\n\\f2 No. 18-3472\\n\\namong other things, that the protracted proceedings have vi-\\nolated his substantive due process rights. Because Campos\\nhas not met the high standard for stating a substantive due\\nprocess claim, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of his\\nclaims.\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n In 1997, Michael Campos began working for the Cook\\nCounty Sheriff’s Office as a correctional officer. In August\\n2011, he was arrested for driving under the influence, striking\\na vehicle, and leaving the scene of an accident. Campos self-\\nreported the incident, and the sheriff suspended him without\\npay on November 29, 2011, and referred him for termination.\\nBy law, the Cook County Sheriff’s Merit Board has exclusive\\nauthority to terminate Sheriff’s Office employees. 55 Ill.\\nComp. Stat. 5/3-7012.\\n While the Merit Board proceedings were ongoing, the\\nCook County Circuit Court granted Campos’s motion to sup-\\npress and quashed his arrest. On October 15, 2015, the Merit\\nBoard voted to terminate Campos for violating state law. He\\npetitioned the circuit court for review approximately one year\\nlater. On January 18, 2017, the circuit court granted Campos’s\\npetition, vacated the Merit Board’s decision as too vague to\\nallow for judicial review, and remanded for a second attempt.\\n In April 2017, the Merit Board once again voted to termi-\\nnate Campos. He sought judicial review. And on March 9,\\n2018, the circuit court vacated and remanded a second time.\\nBut this time, the court vacated the Merit Board’s decision not\\nbecause of some defect in the reasoning but because of a de-\\nfect in the Merit Board’s composition.\\n\\fNo. 18-3472 3\\n\\n The circuit court relied upon a developing line of cases in-\\nvolving interim appointments to the Merit Board. In Taylor v.\\nDart, the Illinois Appellate Court found that the Merit Board\\nAct does not permit the sheriff to appoint Merit Board mem-\\nbers to terms of fewer than six years. 64 N.E.3d 123, 130 (Il.\\nApp. Ct. 2016) (citing 55 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/3–7002). Because\\none member of the Merit Board was serving an interim term\\nwhen the Board voted to terminate the plaintiff, the Taylor\\ncourt held that the decision was void. Id. at 132. The circuit\\ncourt found that the reasoning in Taylor applied with equal\\nforce to Campos. When the Merit Board voted to terminate\\nhim, one member was serving an interim term. 1\\n At this point, it had been almost seven years since the sher-\\niff suspended Campos without pay. Rather than wait for a\\nthird Merit Board decision, he filed suit in federal court. Cam-\\npos’s initial complaint—filed on March 29, 2018—named\\neighteen defendants and advanced five claims. Besides suing\\nCook County, the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office, the\\nsheriff, the Merit Board, and the Board’s members, he also\\nsued the law firm Steptoe and Johnson, LLP, and three of its\\nattorneys (who represented the county in the circuit court\\nproceedings). On May 2, 2018, the Steptoe defendants filed a\\nmotion to dismiss the claims against them. The district court\\nscheduled a hearing on the motion for May 11, 2018.\\n On May 10, Campos filed an amended complaint in which\\nhe renewed his claims against all defendants (except the Cook\\n\\n\\n 1 After Taylor, the Illinois General Assembly amended the Merit Board\\n\\nAct to allow the sheriff to make interim appointments. 55 Ill. Comp. Stat.\\n5/3-7002 (as amended effective Dec. 8, 2017). The sheriff has now reconsti-\\ntuted the Board, correcting the problem identified in Taylor.\\n\\f4 No. 18-3472\\n\\nCounty State’s Attorney’s Office) and added a sixth claim (for\\nFirst Amendment retaliation). The district court held the al-\\nready-scheduled hearing the next day. When plaintiff’s coun-\\nsel advised the court that he had filed an amended complaint\\nthe day before, the court noted that it had not granted leave\\nto file an amended complaint. The court referred to the Local\\nRules for the Northern District of Illinois and concluded that\\nthe original complaint remained the operative document. See\\nN.D. Ill. L.R. 5.3(b) (“Every motion or objection shall be ac-\\ncompanied by a notice of presentment specifying the date and\\ntime on which, and judge before whom, the motion or objec-\\ntion is to be presented.”). After that finding, the court dis-\\nmissed the Steptoe defendants with prejudice.\\n Several months later, the remaining defendants filed a mo-\\ntion to dismiss the amended complaint. On November 5, 2018,\\nthe court granted that motion and dismissed the amended\\ncomplaint with prejudice. Campos appealed.\\n II. ANALYSIS\\n We review the dismissal of a complaint for failure to state\\na claim de novo. Kanter v. Barr, 919 F.3d 437, 440 (7th Cir. 2019).\\nCampos’s amended complaint advances two substantive due\\nprocess claims, three conspiracy claims, and one First Amend-\\nment retaliation claim. Oddly, Campos does not bring a pro-\\ncedural due process claim, focusing instead on substantive\\ndue process. He does suggest that his conspiracy claims might\\nbe either substantive or procedural, but a plaintiff cannot\\nbring a § 1983 claim for conspiracy to deny a civil right unless\\nthe plaintiff states an underlying claim for denial of a right.\\nArcher v. Chisholm, 870 F.3d 603, 620 (7th Cir. 2017). Section\\n1983 conspiracy claims are derivative; they cannot stand\\nalone. In other words, because he has alleged no underlying\\n\\fNo. 18-3472 5\\n\\nprocedural due process violation, his conspiracy claims can-\\nnot be procedural in nature.\\n Accordingly, we limit our analysis to whether Campos has\\nstated substantive due process claims. For the reasons that fol-\\nlow, he has not. And, although Campos spends considerable\\ntime discussing recent decisions by the Illinois appellate\\ncourts which limit Taylor’s impact, we find this line of argu-\\nment to be a red herring. Because Campos did not state cog-\\nnizable claims, the district court properly dismissed with prej-\\nudice.\\n A. Campos Did Not State Substantive Due Process Claims\\n “[T]he scope of substantive due process is very limited.”\\nTun v. Whitticker, 398 F.3d 899, 902 (7th Cir. 2005) (citing Wash-\\nington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997)). And courts should\\nbe “reluctant to expand the concept of substantive due pro-\\ncess because guideposts for responsible decisionmaking in\\nthis unchartered area are scarce and open-ended.” Collins v.\\nCity of Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 125 (1992). Given its slip-\\npery nature, the requirements for stating a substantive due\\nprocess claim are similarly vague. A plaintiff must allege that\\nthe government violated a fundamental right or liberty.\\nGlucksberg, 521 U.S. at 720; Belcher v. Norton, 497 F.3d 742, 753\\n(7th Cir. 2007). And that violation must have been arbitrary\\nand irrational. Cty. of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 845\\n(1998); Idris v. City of Chicago, 552 F.3d 564, 566 (7th Cir. 2009).\\nSubstantive due process protects against only the most egre-\\ngious and outrageous government action. See Lewis, 523 U.S.\\nat 845; Belcher, 497 F.3d at 753 (7th Cir. 2007).\\n “[E]mployment-related rights are not fundamental.” Palka\\nv. Shelton, 623 F.3d 447, 453 (7th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, a\\n\\f6 No. 18-3472\\n\\npublic employee alleging wrongful termination cannot state a\\nsubstantive due process claim “unless the employee also al-\\nleges the defendants violated some other constitutional right\\nor that state remedies were inadequate.” Id. (citing Montgom-\\nery v. Stefaniak, 410 F.3d 933, 939 (7th Cir. 2005)). Thus, to state\\na claim, Campos must allege that the defendants deprived\\nhim of a state-created property interest by arbitrary and irra-\\ntional conduct and that the defendants either committed a\\nseparate constitutional violation or state law remedies are in-\\nadequate. Galdikas v. Fagan, 342 F.3d 684, 691 (7th Cir. 2003),\\nabrogated on other grounds by Spiegla v. Hull, 371 F.3d 928 (7th\\nCir. 2004).\\n Campos spends considerable time arguing that he pos-\\nsesses a property interest in continued employment. The de-\\nfendants do not deny he does, and we assume the same. The\\ndispositive question is whether Campos’s allegations satisfy\\nthe remaining elements.\\n To begin with, Campos hasn’t alleged an independent\\nconstitutional violation. He seems to contend that “[h]is prop-\\nerty interest was the other constitutional right.” But the exist-\\nence of a property right is a predicate to a due process claim.\\nHudson v. City of Chicago, 374 F.3d 554, 559 (7th Cir. 2004).\\nCampos’s alleged property interest in his employment satis-\\nfies one element of his due process claim, but it doesn’t con-\\nstitute an independent constitutional claim on its own.\\n On appeal, Campos makes no mention of the First Amend-\\nment retaliation claim which he alleged in his amended com-\\nplaint. Accordingly, he has waived any challenge to the dis-\\ntrict court’s dismissal of that claim. Puffer v. Allstate Ins. Co.,\\n675 F.3d 709, 718 (7th Cir. 2012). Campos does make several\\nopaque references to “stigma-plus claims” in his opening\\n\\fNo. 18-3472 7\\n\\nbrief. But he never explains what he means by that term, much\\nless cite any cases articulating the elements of the claim or\\nclearly identifying the facts which might support its applica-\\ntion here. 2 Campos has waived this underdeveloped argu-\\nment. Id. Accordingly, Campos has not identified any inde-\\npendent constitutional violations which might support his\\nsubstantive due process claim.\\n Campos also argues that the protracted state court pro-\\nceedings demonstrate the inadequacy of his state law reme-\\ndies. He cites to cases which establish that public employers\\nmust provide tenured employees with a timely and meaning-\\nful hearing before termination. See, e.g., Cleveland Bd. of Educ.\\nv. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 541 (1985); Hudson, 374 F.3d at 559.\\nBut these cases discuss the minimum procedural due process\\nrequirements for terminating public employees. Campos has\\nalleged substantive due process violations.\\n Campos’s allegations fall short. To begin with, his state\\ncourt remedies have, in fact, been effective. He’s twice con-\\nvinced the circuit court to vacate the Merit Board’s decision.\\nThe fact that the circuit court identified problems in both\\nMerit Board decisions doesn’t show that the Merit Board\\n\\n2 In his reply brief, Campos finally unveils the basis for this mysterious\\n“stigma-plus” claim. He seems to mean what we’ve referred to as an “oc-\\ncupational-liberty claim.” See Palka, 623 F.3d at 454 (“An occupational-lib-\\nerty claim may arise when, after an adverse employment action, a public\\nemployer stigmatizes the employee by making public comments impugn-\\ning his good name, honor, or reputation or imposes a stigma that fore-\\ncloses other employment opportunities.”). This is too little, too late. Parties\\nwaive arguments which they develop for the first time in a reply brief.\\nHarris v. Warrick Cty. Sheriff's Dep’t, 666 F.3d 444, 448 (7th Cir. 2012)\\n\\f8 No. 18-3472\\n\\nprocedures are inadequate—it demonstrates that the review\\nprocess has worked. See Palka, 623 F.3d at 453 (holding that\\nthe Merit Board disciplinary process satisfies Cook County’s\\nprocedural due process obligation).\\n Of course, the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees Cam-\\npos an opportunity to be heard regarding his termination “at\\na meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” Logan v.\\nZimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422, 437 (1982) (quoting Arm-\\nstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965)). Eventually, justice\\ndelayed is justice denied. See Schroeder v. City of Chicago, 927\\nF.2d 957, 960 (7th Cir. 1991) (“[A]t some point delay must\\nripen into deprivation, because otherwise a suit alleging dep-\\nrivation would be forever premature.”). And almost eight\\nyears have elapsed since the sheriff first suspended Campos.\\n But there is no bright-line rule for determining when pro-\\ntracted review proceedings run afoul of due process. See\\nMathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976) (explaining that\\ncourts identify due process requirements by carefully weigh-\\ning the relevant interests). And state law remedies fail to sat-\\nisfy due process only when they are “meaningless or nonex-\\nistent.” Michalowicz v. Vill. of Bedford Park, 528 F.3d 530, 535\\n(7th Cir. 2008) (rejecting a procedural due process claim\\nbrought by a terminated firefighter) (quoting Easter House v.\\nFelder, 910 F.2d 1387, 1406 (7th Cir. 1990)). We do not opine on\\nwhether the lengthy termination process satisfies Campos’s\\nprocedural due process rights (though we do note that federal\\nlawsuits often pend for several years, especially if remanded\\nto the district court). See Easter House, 910 F.2d at 1406\\n(“[A]lmost all litigation, whether conducted in a state or fed-\\neral forum, may be characterized as a lengthy and speculative\\n\\fNo. 18-3472 9\\n\\nprocess.”). But the eight-year process is certainly not so arbi-\\ntrary or outrageous as to violate substantive due process. 3\\n We offer no opinion regarding when delays in reaching a\\nfinal adjudication might offend procedural due process. We\\nmerely find that the convoluted proceedings here are evi-\\ndence that Campos has received repeated—and efficacious—\\nopportunities to challenge his termination. The district court\\nproperly dismissed Campos’s due process and conspiracy\\nclaims.\\n B. The District Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion By Dismiss-\\ning Campos’s Claims With Prejudice\\n Finally, Campos argues that the district court erred when\\nit dismissed his claims with prejudice. We review that deci-\\nsion for abuse of discretion. Haywood v. Massage Envy Fran-\\nchising, LLC, 887 F.3d 329, 335 (7th Cir. 2018). The court cer-\\ntainly did not err when it dismissed Campos’s amended com-\\nplaint with prejudice. For the reasons we’ve just articulated,\\n\\n 3 We note, briefly, that post-Taylor developments in Illinois law do not\\n\\naffect our analysis (despite Campos’s arguments to the contrary). In Lopez\\nv. Dart, the Illinois appellate court applied the de facto officer doctrine—\\nwhich confers validity on acts performed by a person acting under color\\nof title even if a later defect in his or her appointment comes to light—to\\nMerit Board decisions. 118 N.E.3d 580, 591, 595 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). Ac-\\ncordingly, only the first challenger may invalidate the agency decision.\\nThe Illinois court of appeals issued Lopez after the circuit court vacated the\\nsecond Merit Board decision in Campos’s case. The district court observed\\nthat this decision may have been erroneous (and the County has asked the\\ncircuit court for reconsideration). Naturally, Campos disagrees. He argues\\nthat de facto officers can still commit constitutional violations. That’s un-\\ndoubtedly true but ultimately irrelevant because he hasn’t stated a claim.\\nWe, of course, offer no opinion regarding the proper resolution of Cam-\\npos’s appeal before the circuit court.\\n\\f10 No. 18-3472\\n\\nCampos did not state claims upon which relief could be\\nbased, and a district court need not grant leave to amend if\\nthere doesn’t seem to be a plausible way to cure the defects.\\nGonzalez-Koeneke v. West, 791 F.3d 801, 808 (7th Cir. 2015).\\n We are slightly more concerned about the district court’s\\ndismissal of the Steptoe defendants (back in May 2018). That\\ndismissal came after Campos filed an amended complaint as\\nof right (as permitted by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure\\n15(a)(B)) but before defendants filed a motion to dismiss that\\nnew complaint. At the May 11, 2018, hearing, the district court\\nsuggested that the amended complaint wasn’t properly filed\\nbecause it hadn’t been “presented,” as required by the Local\\nRules. N.D. Ill. L.R. 5.3(b) (“Every motion or objection shall be\\naccompanied by a notice of presentment specifying the date\\nand time on which, and judge before whom, the motion or\\nobjection is to be presented.”).\\n Local Rule 5.3(b) applies only to motions or objections,\\nand an amended complaint filed as of right is neither. The dis-\\ntrict court thus dismissed the Steptoe defendants sua sponte\\nand without considering the facts alleged against them in the\\noperative complaint.\\n If Campos could conceivably state a claim against the\\nSteptoe attorneys, we would remand. But § 1983 plaintiffs can\\nsue private attorneys for constitutional violations only if they\\nwere “engaged in a conspiracy with state officials to deprive\\nanother of federal rights.” Tower v. Glover, 467 U.S. 914, 920\\n(1984). And given Campos’s failure to state any underlying\\nconstitutional claims, he hasn’t alleged any conspiracy be-\\ntween the Steptoe defendants and county defendants. Ac-\\ncordingly, remand would be futile. See Shockley v. Jones, 823\\nF.2d 1068, 1073 (7th Cir. 1987) (explaining that the court\\n\\fNo. 18-3472 11\\n\\nimproperly dismissed the complaint sua sponte but finding\\nthat remand would be futile because his proposed amended\\ncomplaint did not state a claim either); Baker v. Dir., U.S. Pa-\\nrole Comm’n, 916 F.2d 725, 726 (D.C. Cir. 1990).\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n The Cook County Sheriff referred Campos for termination\\nin 2011, and the proceedings are still pending to this day. But\\nthe lengthy review process demonstrates Campos’s success in\\nattacking the Merit Board’s decisions, not the inadequacy of\\nthe state remedies. The doctrine of substantive due process\\ndoes not guarantee expeditious review; it merely protects fun-\\ndamental rights from government deprivation by arbitrary\\nand outrageous conduct. He doesn’t allege any such conduct\\nhere. AFFIRMED.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3787,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4645616,"string":"4,645,616"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Laverne Williams v. Scott Jaffe"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-08-05"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-2726"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before BAUER, HAMILTON, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"William Joseph Bauer\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\nNo. 18-2726\\n\\nIN RE: SCOTT N. JAFFE,\\n Debtor-Appellee,\\nAPPEAL OF: LAVERNE WILLIAMS.\\n\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 17 C 04662 — John J. Tharp, Jr., Judge.\\n\\n\\n\\n ARGUED FEBRUARY 7, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 5, 2019\\n\\n\\n Before BAUER, HAMILTON, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\\n BAUER, Circuit Judge. Section 522(b)(1) of the United States\\nBankruptcy Code states that a “debtor may exempt from\\nproperty of the [bankruptcy] estate the property listed in either\\nparagraph (2) or, in the alternative paragraph (3).” At issue in\\nthis case is paragraph (3) subsection (B), which states, in full,\\nthat:\\n Property listed in this paragraph is any interest\\n in property which the debtor had, immediately\\n before the commencement of the case, an inter-\\n est as a tenant by the entirety or joint tenant to\\n\\f2 No. 18-2726\\n\\n the extent that such interest as a tenant by the\\n entirety or joint tenant is exempt from process\\n under applicable nonbankruptcy law.\\n11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(3)(B). We must determine to what extent\\ncontingent future interests created by Illinois law are exempt\\nunder this section. The most natural reading of the statute\\nexempts any interest held by an individual as a tenant by the\\nentirety to the extent that state law exempts that particular\\ninterest. The district court found that any interest held by the\\ndebtor is exempt to the extent that state law exempted the\\nentirety interest. We reverse the district court and hold that the\\ndebtor’s property cannot be excluded from the bankruptcy\\nestate.\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n In 1998, Laverne Williams wanted to file a medical malprac-\\ntice lawsuit and hired Scott Jaffe to be her attorney. The statute\\nof limitations expired before Jaffe filed a complaint and\\nWilliams sued for legal malpractice, obtained a default\\njudgment, and recorded that judgment on a property that Jaffe\\nand his wife owned as tenants by the entirety. Williams now\\nclaims post-judgment interest brings her total claim against\\nJaffe to $1.04 million.\\n Jaffe filed a chapter 7 bankruptcy petition in November\\n2015, which identified his debt to Williams and indicated it\\nwas secured by a judgment lien on his residence. On the\\npetition date Jaffe and his wife owned the property as tenants\\nby the entirety, but before bankruptcy proceedings were\\ncomplete Jaffe’s wife died. According to Illinois law, when his\\nwife died the tenancy by the entirety terminated and Jaffe held\\n\\fNo. 18-2726 3\\n\\nthe property individually in fee simple. To avoid the judgment\\nlien Jaffe filed a motion in the bankruptcy court arguing the\\nproperty was exempt under 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(3)(B). Williams\\nresponded that the property was not exempt because the\\nfederal bankruptcy provision that Jaffe relied upon looks to\\nstate law to determine whether a tenancy property is exempt.\\nBecause Illinois does not exempt contingent future interests,\\nWilliams argued, the federal bankruptcy statute does not allow\\nJaffe to exempt the property from the bankruptcy estate. On\\nappeal the parties renew these arguments.\\n II. DISCUSSION\\n We must first determine whether a lien exists and what\\ninterests it attached to. If no lien exists the debtor cannot seek\\nan exemption under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f) and our inquiry is\\ncomplete. See In re Chinosorn, 243 B.R. 688, 694 (Bankr. N.D. Ill.\\n2000) (noting there are “three elements for lien avoidance: (1) a\\nlien must have fixed on an interest of the debtor in property,\\n(2) the lien must impair an exemption to which the debtor\\nwould have been entitled under § 522(b), and (3) the lien must\\nbe a judicial lien—with the debtor bearing the burden of each\\nelement.”). If a lien attached we must also determine to what\\ninterests it attached. Jaffe argues that, if any lien exists, it\\nattached only to his tenancy interest which is exempt under\\nIllinois law. Williams asserts her lien attached to Jaffe’s\\ncontingent future interest in the property. If we determine a\\nlien attached to a property interest we must then determine\\nwhether that interest is exempt under § 522(b)(3)(B). We will\\naddress each issue in turn.\\n\\f4 No. 18-2726\\n\\n A. The Existence of a Lien\\n If a judicial lien attaches to property that is entitled to\\nexemption from the bankruptcy estate, § 522(f) allows the\\ndebtor to avoid the fixing of the lien. See 11 U.S.C. § 522(f).\\nIllinois courts have not decided whether a judgment lien\\nattaches to the individual interests (in particular contingent\\nfuture interests) of a tenant by the entirety. Where a state’s\\nhighest court has not ruled on an issue, we must apply the law\\nin a manner we believe the state supreme court would, if\\npresented with the issue. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Statewide\\nIns. Co., 352 F.3d 1098, 1100 (7th Cir. 2003).\\n To answer this question we turn to the applicable Illinois\\nstatutes, which have long controlled the attachment of judg-\\nment liens. Lehman v. Cottrell, 19 N.E.2d 111, 114 (2d Dist. 1939)\\n(“At common law, land was subject neither to execution nor to\\nthe lien of a judgment. Both these results are purely statu-\\ntory.”). Section 12–101 of the Illinois code creates judgment\\nliens and controls their ability to attach to certain property\\ninterests. The statute dictates that judgment liens may attach to\\nall “real estate” and defines “real estate” broadly to include all\\n“lands, tenements, hereditaments, and all legal and equitable\\nrights therein.” 735 ILCS 5/12–105.\\n The Illinois legislature enumerated the precise interests\\ntenants by the entirety enjoy individually, including the\\nfollowing contingent future interests: “(a) an interest as a\\ntenant in common in the event of a divorce, (b) an interest as a\\njoint tenant in the event that another homestead is established,\\nand (c) a survivorship interest in the entire property in the\\nevent of the other tenant’s death.” 765 ILCS 1005/1c. These\\n\\fNo. 18-2726 5\\n\\ncontingent future interests fall within the statute’s broad\\ndefinition of “real estate.” Therefore, a judgment lien attaches\\nto these individual interests, absent some exception. See In re\\nTolson, 338 B.R. 359, 369 (C.D. Ill. 2005). The only exception that\\n12-101 identifies is section 12-901—the homestead exception.\\nSee 735 ILCS 5/12-901 (the “homestead and all rights in and\\ntitle to that homestead is exempt from attachment, judgment,\\nlevy or judgment sale for the payment of his or her debts or\\nother purposes … .”).\\n Otherwise, “where the Illinois legislature has determined\\nthat a judgment lien should not be created as to a debtor’s\\ninterest in particular property, it has provided that\\nthe property is ‘exempt from judgment,’ see 735 ILCS 5/12-1001\\n(specified personal property), or that it is not ‘subject to any\\nlien,’ see 820 ILCS 305/21 (workers’ compensation award).”\\nChinosorn, 243 B.R. at 695–95. But Illinois does not “exempt\\nfrom judgment” interests held in tenancy by the entirety or\\ncontingent future interests held by tenants by the entirety.\\nIllinois law merely exempts the tenancy interest from the\\nattachment of a judgment lien. 735 ILCS 5/12-112. Section 12-\\n112 provides that judgment liens may attach to all “lands,\\ntenements, goods and chattels.” It then carves out a narrow\\nexception, the tenancy interest, without mentioning the\\ncontingent future interests explicitly created by the Illinois\\nlegislature.\\n It is clear that if the Illinois legislature wanted to exempt\\nparticular interests from the attachment of judgment liens, it\\nhad no problem in doing so. Because the Illinois legislature\\nfailed to do so, we find that Williams’s judgment lien attached\\nto Jaffe’s contingent future interest in the property. See Yotis,\\n\\f6 No. 18-2726\\n\\n518 B.R. at 486–90; Tolson, 338 B.R. at 367 (holding that “the\\ncontingent right of survivorship of each entireties tenant is a\\npresent property right to which a judgment lien extends.”).\\n B. Exemption Under § 522(b)(3)(B)\\n Tenancy by the entirety is a form of property ownership\\nthat arose out of common law and developed as part of the\\nEnglish feudal system. Oval A. Phipps, Tenancy by the Entire-\\nties, 25 Temp. L.Q. 24 (1951). Until the nineteenth century,\\nmarried women in the United States were subject to coverture.\\nThis meant a wife’s legal identity and property were absorbed\\nby her husband and he was granted legal dominion over\\neverything. Id. Therefore, if a married couple purchased\\nproperty, it could not be owned by the husband and wife\\nbecause both spouses were considered a single legal entity (the\\nhusband). Id. Tenancy by the entirety was created so spouses\\ncould own property jointly and upon the death of one spouse\\nthe property would belong to the surviving spouse. Then,\\n“during the middle and latter part of the nineteenth century,\\nas part of a reform movement aimed at emancipating married\\nwomen from their state of social and economic dependency,\\nthe Married Women’s Property Acts were enacted practically\\nuniversally by the legislatures of the several states.” Id.\\n Following the passage of the Married Women’s Property\\nActs, states splintered in their approach to tenancy by the\\nentirety. Many state courts thought the acts destroyed tenancy\\nby the entirety and a few courts held they were unaffected;\\nseveral state courts gave both spouses the rights of the hus-\\nband under common law and a large number of states found\\nboth spouses had only the limited interests a wife previously\\n\\fNo. 18-2726 7\\n\\nhad under common law. Chinosorn, 243 B.R. at 692–93 (collect-\\ning cases). States also divided over whether tenancy by the\\nentirety encompassed real property and personal property, or\\njust real property. Id. at 693. The Illinois judiciary found that\\nthe state’s Married Women’s Act abolished tenancy by the\\nentirety but, in 1990, the legislature codified tenancy by the\\nentirety for real estate owned by spouses who were using the\\nproperty as their homestead. 765 ILCS 1005/1c.\\n Jurisdictions that recognize tenancy by the entirety,\\nhowever, are not uniform in their approach to creditors’ rights\\nagainst the estate:\\n A creditor’s right to levy on a married person’s\\n property is complex, and varies by state and the\\n type of debt and property. Every state allows\\n satisfaction of a debt which has been jointly\\n incurred by a husband and wife against jointly\\n held property, even if that property is held in a\\n tenancy by the entirety … . Some states allow\\n the satisfaction of an individual spouse’s debt\\n against entireties property, but most do not.\\nCreditors’ Rights Against Entireties Property In and Out of\\nBankruptcy, 1983 Ann. Surv. of Bankr. Law Part II (September\\n1983). With this kaleidoscopic background in mind, we turn\\nto the bankruptcy aspect of this case.\\n A debtor’s bankruptcy estate must include “all legal or\\nequitable interests of the debtor in property as of the com-\\nmencement of the case.” 11 U.S.C. § 541(a). This includes an\\nindividual debtor’s interest in property held as a tenant by the\\nentirety. In re Hunter, 970 F.2d 299, 303 (7th Cir. 1992); Napotnik\\n\\f8 No. 18-2726\\n\\nv. Equibank & Parkvale Savings Association, 679 F.2d 316 (3d Cir.\\n1982). All property in the estate is liquidated by the bankruptcy\\ntrustee and the proceeds are distributed to creditors based on\\ntheir priority. 11 U.S.C. § 704. But the Bankruptcy Code allows\\ndebtors to exempt certain estate property. Exempt property is\\nremoved from the estate and retained by the debtor.\\nSection 522(b)(3)(B) exempts:\\n [a]ny interest in property in which the debtor\\n had, immediately before the commencement of\\n the case, an interest as a tenant by the entirety or\\n joint tenant to the extent that such interest as a\\n tenant by the entirety or joint tenant is exempt\\n from process under applicable nonbankruptcy\\n law.\\nThe law of co-tenancies is almost exclusively a matter of state\\nlaw since there is no general federal property law, therefore,\\nthe “applicable nonbankruptcy law” is Illinois law. The\\nquestion here is to what extent § 522(b)(3)(B) exempts Jaffe’s\\ncontingent future interest in the tenancy property. There is no\\ndispute that a lien that attached to Jaffe’s tenancy interest would\\nbe exempt. However, the nub of this case lies in the exemption\\nof the lesser interests that are not exempted under Illinois law.\\n The district court interpreted § 522(b)(3)(B) to exempt\\nJaffe’s contingent future interest in the entireties property,\\ndespite the fact that Illinois provides no exemption for these\\ninterests. In reaching this conclusion the district court parti-\\ntioned the statutory language into four elements:\\n § 522(b)(3)(B) exempts: (i) any interest in prop-\\n erty; (ii) in which the debtor had an interest as a\\n\\fNo. 18-2726 9\\n\\n tenant in the entirety; (iii) at the time the bank-\\n ruptcy petition was filed; (iv) to the extent that\\n state law exempts an interest as tenant in the\\n entirety from legal process.\\nJaffe v. Williams, No. 1:17-cv-4662, slip op. at *4 (N.D. Ill.\\nMay 22, 2018). The district court noted that Jaffe had an interest\\nas a tenant by the entirety (as well as contingent future\\ninterests) at the time the bankruptcy petition was filed (satisfy-\\ning the first three elements). The district court then concluded\\nthat any interest he held (contingent future interests included)\\nwas exempt to the extent that the tenancy interest was exempt\\nunder Illinois law. And since Illinois exempts the tenancy\\ninterest, more specifically the forced sale of the tenancy\\nproperty to collect a debt against just one tenant, all other\\ninterests Jaffe had as a tenancy by the entirety were exempt\\ncompletely.\\n But the fourth element of the district court’s analysis left\\nout a key word—“such.” Section 522(b)(3)(B) exempts certain\\ninterests “to the extent that such interest as a tenant by the\\nentirety” is exempt under state law. By not giving sufficient\\nweight to the word “such,” the district court interpreted the\\nstatute to mean that any property interest is exempt to the\\nextent that the entirety interest is exempt. But identifying what\\n“such” refers to is the main interpretive issue in this case. If\\n“such” refers just to “any interest,” as Jaffe argues, the district\\ncourt’s conclusion is correct because the statute would exempt\\n“any interest” the debtor had to the extent that any tenancy\\ninterest is exempt from state law. However, if “such interest”\\nrefers to something more limited, like the precise interests the\\n\\f10 No. 18-2726\\n\\ndebtor was seeking to exempt, the district court’s interpreta-\\ntion is incorrect.\\n Section 522(b)(3)(B) begins broadly by stating it exempts\\n“any interest in property.” The provision goes on to state that\\nthe debtor must have an interest in the property “as a tenant by\\nthe entirety” in order to claim an exemption, thus cabining “any\\ninterest in property.” This means that if, for example, a tenant\\nby the entirety transferred her interest in the income the\\nproperty generated, the transferee could not claim an exemp-\\ntion under § 522(b)(3)(B) since she does not hold the interest as\\na tenant by the entirety. The provision goes on to state that the\\nexemption applies “to the extent that such interests as a tenant\\nby the entirety,” meaning the precise interests that the debtor\\nholds as a tenant by the entirety, are exempt under state law.\\n We read this provision to establish two things. First, the\\nopening language indicates the interests that may qualify for\\nexemptions—any interest the debtor has, so long as she holds\\nthat interest as a tenant by the entirety. The provision then\\ndefines which of those qualifying interests are exempt—all of\\nthe debtor’s qualifying interests to the extent that they are\\nexempt under applicable nonbankruptcy law. Our reading of\\nthe statute yields a simple result—interests a debtor holds as\\na tenant by the entirety are exempt to the extent that those\\ninterests the debtor holds as a tenant by the entirety are exempt\\nunder state law.\\n The statutory language does not support the argument that\\n“such interest as a tenant by the entirety” is referring more\\nbroadly to “any interest in property” as Jaffe argues. It is much\\nmore sensible to read “such interest” as referring to the\\n\\fNo. 18-2726 11\\n\\ncomplete introductory phrase, which identifies the debtor’s\\nspecific interests that potentially qualify for an exemption.\\nAdditionally, the signifier (“such interest”) and referent\\n(“interest as a tenant by the entirety”) use mirroring language\\nindicating that the latter is referring to the former: “property in\\nwhich the debtor had … an interest as a tenant by the entirety …\\nto the extent that such interest as a tenant by the entirety” is\\nexempt. This buttresses the conclusion that “such interest” was\\nmeant to refer to the specific interests that the debtor held as a\\ntenant by the entirety, rather than only referring to “any\\ninterest.”\\n Given the variety of rights, interests, and exemptions in\\ntenancy by the entirety, it is likely that Congress enacted\\n§ 522(b)(3)(B) to reflect the full spectrum of different ap-\\nproaches states have taken. See Chinosorn, 243 B.R. at 700 (“the\\napparent intent of the provision is to provide, in bankruptcy,\\na level of protection from claims of creditors identical to the\\nprotection that owners of entireties property would have in\\ncollection proceedings outside of bankruptcy, under applicable\\nstate law.”). “Any interest in property in which the debtor\\nhad … an interest” is broad, inclusive language that signals\\nthat all state exemptions for tenants by the entirety will be\\nhonored in federal bankruptcy court. But the district court’s\\nreading would mean that no matter how nuanced state\\nexemptions for tenants by the entirety are, all interests would\\nbe exempt if the state exempts the entirety interest. This means\\nthat if Illinois decided to explicitly exempt the contingent\\nfuture interests that Williams’s lien attached to, such an\\nexemption would be given no effect by a bankruptcy statute\\n\\f12 No. 18-2726\\n\\nthat relies on state law. This interpretation leads to an absurd\\nresult and could not be what Congress intended.\\n Additionally, our reading of the statute is in line with each\\nof our sister circuits that have considered the issue. While it\\ndoes not appear that those cases involved arguments by the\\nparties that required similar exegesis of the statutory text, the\\nfact that the no party argued otherwise implies that the statute\\nis naturally read as we read it today. See e.g., In re Arango, 992\\nF.2d 611, 613 (6th Cir. 1993) (“[W]e must first look to Tennessee\\nlaw to classify Arango’s interests in entireties property. We\\nthen determine which of those interest is exempt from his\\nbankruptcy estate by determining whether each particular\\ninterest is subject to execution under Tennessee law” (emphasis\\nadded)); Ragsdale v. Genesco, Inc., 674 F.2d 277, 239 (4th Cir.\\n1982) (“The phrase ‘to the extent such interest … is exempt\\nfrom process under applicable nonbankruptcy law’ is of\\ndecisive importance. If the Ragsdales’ residential real property\\ncould be reached to satisfy a state court judgment in Virginia,\\nit could not be successfully claimed as exempt”); Napotnik v.\\nEquibank & Parkvale Sav. Ass’n, 679 F.2d 316 , 322–23 (3d Cir.\\n1982) (“Since the debtor’s interest in the real property owned\\nwith his wife as tenants by the entirety is not exempt from\\nprocess in Pennsylvania because they are joint obligors, he is\\nnot entitled to exempt that portion of his equity subject to\\nEquibank’s judicial lien, and cannot avoid that lien under\\nSection 522(f)”).\\n Here, Williams obtained a judgment lien on Jaffe’s contin-\\ngent future interest that existed when Jaffe filed his bankruptcy\\npetition. The first determination that must be made is whether\\nJaffe’s interest is the kind that potentially qualifies for an\\n\\fNo. 18-2726 13\\n\\nexemption under § 522(b)(3)(B). Any interest can qualify so\\nlong as it is an interest one holds “as a tenant by the entirety.”\\nJaffe held his interest as a tenant by the entirety so we must\\ndetermine whether the interest is exempt. This requires looking\\nto Illinois law to determine whether contingent future interests\\nare exempt from process.\\n The main protection that Illinois law provides tenants by\\nthe entirety is that a creditor is unable to force the sale of the\\nproperty to collect a debt against only one of the tenants. 735\\nILCS 5/12-112 (2014). Illinois law does not make all interests\\nheld by tenants by the entirety immune from process and we\\nneed not look hard for a state that does—Indiana law exempts\\n“any interest the judgment has in real estate as a tenant by the\\nentireties.” Ind. Code § 34-2-28-1(a)(5); In re Paeplow, 972 F.2d\\n730, 737 (7th Cir. 1992). Illinois law explicitly refuses to exempt\\nincome from entirety properties and fails to provide an\\nexemption for the contingent future interests. 765 ILCS 1005/1c;\\nsee also Yotis, 518 B.R. at 489–90 (holding that “any future\\ninterest that may be held by either tenant alone, such as the\\ncontingent future interest, is not exempt at all”). Accordingly,\\nwe find that Jaffe is not entitled to an exemption of his contin-\\ngent future interest. The district court’s conclusion otherwise\\nwas erroneous.\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n Because the statute exempts an individual’s tenancy\\ninterest to the extent that state law exempts that interest, we\\nreverse the decision of the district court and remand for further\\nproceedings consistent with this opinion.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4422869/\", \"author_raw\": \"William Joseph Bauer\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"BAUER"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"HAMILTON"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"BRENNAN"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"BAUER\": \", Circuit\", \"HAMILTON\": \", Circuit\", \"BRENNAN\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645616/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":8,"string":"8"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Laverne Williams v. Scott Jaffe\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-08-05\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\nNo. 18-2726\n\nIN RE: SCOTT N. JAFFE,\n Debtor-Appellee,\nAPPEAL OF: LAVERNE WILLIAMS.\n\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\n No. 17 C 04662 — John J. Tharp, Jr., Judge.\n\n\n\n ARGUED FEBRUARY 7, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 5, 2019\n\n\n Before BAUER, HAMILTON, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\n BAUER, Circuit Judge. Section 522(b)(1) of the United States\nBankruptcy Code states that a “debtor may exempt from\nproperty of the [bankruptcy] estate the property listed in either\nparagraph (2) or, in the alternative paragraph (3).” At issue in\nthis case is paragraph (3) subsection (B), which states, in full,\nthat:\n Property listed in this paragraph is any interest\n in property which the debtor had, immediately\n before the commencement of the case, an inter-\n est as a tenant by the entirety or joint tenant to\n\f2 No. 18-2726\n\n the extent that such interest as a tenant by the\n entirety or joint tenant is exempt from process\n under applicable nonbankruptcy law.\n11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(3)(B). We must determine to what extent\ncontingent future interests created by Illinois law are exempt\nunder this section. The most natural reading of the statute\nexempts any interest held by an individual as a tenant by the\nentirety to the extent that state law exempts that particular\ninterest. The district court found that any interest held by the\ndebtor is exempt to the extent that state law exempted the\nentirety interest. We reverse the district court and hold that the\ndebtor’s property cannot be excluded from the bankruptcy\nestate.\n I. BACKGROUND\n In 1998, Laverne Williams wanted to file a medical malprac-\ntice lawsuit and hired Scott Jaffe to be her attorney. The statute\nof limitations expired before Jaffe filed a complaint and\nWilliams sued for legal malpractice, obtained a default\njudgment, and recorded that judgment on a property that Jaffe\nand his wife owned as tenants by the entirety. Williams now\nclaims post-judgment interest brings her total claim against\nJaffe to $1.04 million.\n Jaffe filed a chapter 7 bankruptcy petition in November\n2015, which identified his debt to Williams and indicated it\nwas secured by a judgment lien on his residence. On the\npetition date Jaffe and his wife owned the property as tenants\nby the entirety, but before bankruptcy proceedings were\ncomplete Jaffe’s wife died. According to Illinois law, when his\nwife died the tenancy by the entirety terminated and Jaffe held\n\fNo. 18-2726 3\n\nthe property individually in fee simple. To avoid the judgment\nlien Jaffe filed a motion in the bankruptcy court arguing the\nproperty was exempt under 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(3)(B). Williams\nresponded that the property was not exempt because the\nfederal bankruptcy provision that Jaffe relied upon looks to\nstate law to determine whether a tenancy property is exempt.\nBecause Illinois does not exempt contingent future interests,\nWilliams argued, the federal bankruptcy statute does not allow\nJaffe to exempt the property from the bankruptcy estate. On\nappeal the parties renew these arguments.\n II. DISCUSSION\n We must first determine whether a lien exists and what\ninterests it attached to. If no lien exists the debtor cannot seek\nan exemption under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f) and our inquiry is\ncomplete. See In re Chinosorn, 243 B.R. 688, 694 (Bankr. N.D. Ill.\n2000) (noting there are “three elements for lien avoidance: (1) a\nlien must have fixed on an interest of the debtor in property,\n(2) the lien must impair an exemption to which the debtor\nwould have been entitled under § 522(b), and (3) the lien must\nbe a judicial lien—with the debtor bearing the burden of each\nelement.”). If a lien attached we must also determine to what\ninterests it attached. Jaffe argues that, if any lien exists, it\nattached only to his tenancy interest which is exempt under\nIllinois law. Williams asserts her lien attached to Jaffe’s\ncontingent future interest in the property. If we determine a\nlien attached to a property interest we must then determine\nwhether that interest is exempt under § 522(b)(3)(B). We will\naddress each issue in turn.\n\f4 No. 18-2726\n\n A. The Existence of a Lien\n If a judicial lien attaches to property that is entitled to\nexemption from the bankruptcy estate, § 522(f) allows the\ndebtor to avoid the fixing of the lien. See 11 U.S.C. § 522(f).\nIllinois courts have not decided whether a judgment lien\nattaches to the individual interests (in particular contingent\nfuture interests) of a tenant by the entirety. Where a state’s\nhighest court has not ruled on an issue, we must apply the law\nin a manner we believe the state supreme court would, if\npresented with the issue. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Statewide\nIns. Co., 352 F.3d 1098, 1100 (7th Cir. 2003).\n To answer this question we turn to the applicable Illinois\nstatutes, which have long controlled the attachment of judg-\nment liens. Lehman v. Cottrell, 19 N.E.2d 111, 114 (2d Dist. 1939)\n(“At common law, land was subject neither to execution nor to\nthe lien of a judgment. Both these results are purely statu-\ntory.”). Section 12–101 of the Illinois code creates judgment\nliens and controls their ability to attach to certain property\ninterests. The statute dictates that judgment liens may attach to\nall “real estate” and defines “real estate” broadly to include all\n“lands, tenements, hereditaments, and all legal and equitable\nrights therein.” 735 ILCS 5/12–105.\n The Illinois legislature enumerated the precise interests\ntenants by the entirety enjoy individually, including the\nfollowing contingent future interests: “(a) an interest as a\ntenant in common in the event of a divorce, (b) an interest as a\njoint tenant in the event that another homestead is established,\nand (c) a survivorship interest in the entire property in the\nevent of the other tenant’s death.” 765 ILCS 1005/1c. These\n\fNo. 18-2726 5\n\ncontingent future interests fall within the statute’s broad\ndefinition of “real estate.” Therefore, a judgment lien attaches\nto these individual interests, absent some exception. See In re\nTolson, 338 B.R. 359, 369 (C.D. Ill. 2005). The only exception that\n12-101 identifies is section 12-901—the homestead exception.\nSee 735 ILCS 5/12-901 (the “homestead and all rights in and\ntitle to that homestead is exempt from attachment, judgment,\nlevy or judgment sale for the payment of his or her debts or\nother purposes … .”).\n Otherwise, “where the Illinois legislature has determined\nthat a judgment lien should not be created as to a debtor’s\ninterest in particular property, it has provided that\nthe property is ‘exempt from judgment,’ see 735 ILCS 5/12-1001\n(specified personal property), or that it is not ‘subject to any\nlien,’ see 820 ILCS 305/21 (workers’ compensation award).”\nChinosorn, 243 B.R. at 695–95. But Illinois does not “exempt\nfrom judgment” interests held in tenancy by the entirety or\ncontingent future interests held by tenants by the entirety.\nIllinois law merely exempts the tenancy interest from the\nattachment of a judgment lien. 735 ILCS 5/12-112. Section 12-\n112 provides that judgment liens may attach to all “lands,\ntenements, goods and chattels.” It then carves out a narrow\nexception, the tenancy interest, without mentioning the\ncontingent future interests explicitly created by the Illinois\nlegislature.\n It is clear that if the Illinois legislature wanted to exempt\nparticular interests from the attachment of judgment liens, it\nhad no problem in doing so. Because the Illinois legislature\nfailed to do so, we find that Williams’s judgment lien attached\nto Jaffe’s contingent future interest in the property. See Yotis,\n\f6 No. 18-2726\n\n518 B.R. at 486–90; Tolson, 338 B.R. at 367 (holding that “the\ncontingent right of survivorship of each entireties tenant is a\npresent property right to which a judgment lien extends.”).\n B. Exemption Under § 522(b)(3)(B)\n Tenancy by the entirety is a form of property ownership\nthat arose out of common law and developed as part of the\nEnglish feudal system. Oval A. Phipps, Tenancy by the Entire-\nties, 25 Temp. L.Q. 24 (1951). Until the nineteenth century,\nmarried women in the United States were subject to coverture.\nThis meant a wife’s legal identity and property were absorbed\nby her husband and he was granted legal dominion over\neverything. Id. Therefore, if a married couple purchased\nproperty, it could not be owned by the husband and wife\nbecause both spouses were considered a single legal entity (the\nhusband). Id. Tenancy by the entirety was created so spouses\ncould own property jointly and upon the death of one spouse\nthe property would belong to the surviving spouse. Then,\n“during the middle and latter part of the nineteenth century,\nas part of a reform movement aimed at emancipating married\nwomen from their state of social and economic dependency,\nthe Married Women’s Property Acts were enacted practically\nuniversally by the legislatures of the several states.” Id.\n Following the passage of the Married Women’s Property\nActs, states splintered in their approach to tenancy by the\nentirety. Many state courts thought the acts destroyed tenancy\nby the entirety and a few courts held they were unaffected;\nseveral state courts gave both spouses the rights of the hus-\nband under common law and a large number of states found\nboth spouses had only the limited interests a wife previously\n\fNo. 18-2726 7\n\nhad under common law. Chinosorn, 243 B.R. at 692–93 (collect-\ning cases). States also divided over whether tenancy by the\nentirety encompassed real property and personal property, or\njust real property. Id. at 693. The Illinois judiciary found that\nthe state’s Married Women’s Act abolished tenancy by the\nentirety but, in 1990, the legislature codified tenancy by the\nentirety for real estate owned by spouses who were using the\nproperty as their homestead. 765 ILCS 1005/1c.\n Jurisdictions that recognize tenancy by the entirety,\nhowever, are not uniform in their approach to creditors’ rights\nagainst the estate:\n A creditor’s right to levy on a married person’s\n property is complex, and varies by state and the\n type of debt and property. Every state allows\n satisfaction of a debt which has been jointly\n incurred by a husband and wife against jointly\n held property, even if that property is held in a\n tenancy by the entirety … . Some states allow\n the satisfaction of an individual spouse’s debt\n against entireties property, but most do not.\nCreditors’ Rights Against Entireties Property In and Out of\nBankruptcy, 1983 Ann. Surv. of Bankr. Law Part II (September\n1983). With this kaleidoscopic background in mind, we turn\nto the bankruptcy aspect of this case.\n A debtor’s bankruptcy estate must include “all legal or\nequitable interests of the debtor in property as of the com-\nmencement of the case.” 11 U.S.C. § 541(a). This includes an\nindividual debtor’s interest in property held as a tenant by the\nentirety. In re Hunter, 970 F.2d 299, 303 (7th Cir. 1992); Napotnik\n\f8 No. 18-2726\n\nv. Equibank & Parkvale Savings Association, 679 F.2d 316 (3d Cir.\n1982). All property in the estate is liquidated by the bankruptcy\ntrustee and the proceeds are distributed to creditors based on\ntheir priority. 11 U.S.C. § 704. But the Bankruptcy Code allows\ndebtors to exempt certain estate property. Exempt property is\nremoved from the estate and retained by the debtor.\nSection 522(b)(3)(B) exempts:\n [a]ny interest in property in which the debtor\n had, immediately before the commencement of\n the case, an interest as a tenant by the entirety or\n joint tenant to the extent that such interest as a\n tenant by the entirety or joint tenant is exempt\n from process under applicable nonbankruptcy\n law.\nThe law of co-tenancies is almost exclusively a matter of state\nlaw since there is no general federal property law, therefore,\nthe “applicable nonbankruptcy law” is Illinois law. The\nquestion here is to what extent § 522(b)(3)(B) exempts Jaffe’s\ncontingent future interest in the tenancy property. There is no\ndispute that a lien that attached to Jaffe’s tenancy interest would\nbe exempt. However, the nub of this case lies in the exemption\nof the lesser interests that are not exempted under Illinois law.\n The district court interpreted § 522(b)(3)(B) to exempt\nJaffe’s contingent future interest in the entireties property,\ndespite the fact that Illinois provides no exemption for these\ninterests. In reaching this conclusion the district court parti-\ntioned the statutory language into four elements:\n § 522(b)(3)(B) exempts: (i) any interest in prop-\n erty; (ii) in which the debtor had an interest as a\n\fNo. 18-2726 9\n\n tenant in the entirety; (iii) at the time the bank-\n ruptcy petition was filed; (iv) to the extent that\n state law exempts an interest as tenant in the\n entirety from legal process.\nJaffe v. Williams, No. 1:17-cv-4662, slip op. at *4 (N.D. Ill.\nMay 22, 2018). The district court noted that Jaffe had an interest\nas a tenant by the entirety (as well as contingent future\ninterests) at the time the bankruptcy petition was filed (satisfy-\ning the first three elements). The district court then concluded\nthat any interest he held (contingent future interests included)\nwas exempt to the extent that the tenancy interest was exempt\nunder Illinois law. And since Illinois exempts the tenancy\ninterest, more specifically the forced sale of the tenancy\nproperty to collect a debt against just one tenant, all other\ninterests Jaffe had as a tenancy by the entirety were exempt\ncompletely.\n But the fourth element of the district court’s analysis left\nout a key word—“such.” Section 522(b)(3)(B) exempts certain\ninterests “to the extent that such interest as a tenant by the\nentirety” is exempt under state law. By not giving sufficient\nweight to the word “such,” the district court interpreted the\nstatute to mean that any property interest is exempt to the\nextent that the entirety interest is exempt. But identifying what\n“such” refers to is the main interpretive issue in this case. If\n“such” refers just to “any interest,” as Jaffe argues, the district\ncourt’s conclusion is correct because the statute would exempt\n“any interest” the debtor had to the extent that any tenancy\ninterest is exempt from state law. However, if “such interest”\nrefers to something more limited, like the precise interests the\n\f10 No. 18-2726\n\ndebtor was seeking to exempt, the district court’s interpreta-\ntion is incorrect.\n Section 522(b)(3)(B) begins broadly by stating it exempts\n“any interest in property.” The provision goes on to state that\nthe debtor must have an interest in the property “as a tenant by\nthe entirety” in order to claim an exemption, thus cabining “any\ninterest in property.” This means that if, for example, a tenant\nby the entirety transferred her interest in the income the\nproperty generated, the transferee could not claim an exemp-\ntion under § 522(b)(3)(B) since she does not hold the interest as\na tenant by the entirety. The provision goes on to state that the\nexemption applies “to the extent that such interests as a tenant\nby the entirety,” meaning the precise interests that the debtor\nholds as a tenant by the entirety, are exempt under state law.\n We read this provision to establish two things. First, the\nopening language indicates the interests that may qualify for\nexemptions—any interest the debtor has, so long as she holds\nthat interest as a tenant by the entirety. The provision then\ndefines which of those qualifying interests are exempt—all of\nthe debtor’s qualifying interests to the extent that they are\nexempt under applicable nonbankruptcy law. Our reading of\nthe statute yields a simple result—interests a debtor holds as\na tenant by the entirety are exempt to the extent that those\ninterests the debtor holds as a tenant by the entirety are exempt\nunder state law.\n The statutory language does not support the argument that\n“such interest as a tenant by the entirety” is referring more\nbroadly to “any interest in property” as Jaffe argues. It is much\nmore sensible to read “such interest” as referring to the\n\fNo. 18-2726 11\n\ncomplete introductory phrase, which identifies the debtor’s\nspecific interests that potentially qualify for an exemption.\nAdditionally, the signifier (“such interest”) and referent\n(“interest as a tenant by the entirety”) use mirroring language\nindicating that the latter is referring to the former: “property in\nwhich the debtor had … an interest as a tenant by the entirety …\nto the extent that such interest as a tenant by the entirety” is\nexempt. This buttresses the conclusion that “such interest” was\nmeant to refer to the specific interests that the debtor held as a\ntenant by the entirety, rather than only referring to “any\ninterest.”\n Given the variety of rights, interests, and exemptions in\ntenancy by the entirety, it is likely that Congress enacted\n§ 522(b)(3)(B) to reflect the full spectrum of different ap-\nproaches states have taken. See Chinosorn, 243 B.R. at 700 (“the\napparent intent of the provision is to provide, in bankruptcy,\na level of protection from claims of creditors identical to the\nprotection that owners of entireties property would have in\ncollection proceedings outside of bankruptcy, under applicable\nstate law.”). “Any interest in property in which the debtor\nhad … an interest” is broad, inclusive language that signals\nthat all state exemptions for tenants by the entirety will be\nhonored in federal bankruptcy court. But the district court’s\nreading would mean that no matter how nuanced state\nexemptions for tenants by the entirety are, all interests would\nbe exempt if the state exempts the entirety interest. This means\nthat if Illinois decided to explicitly exempt the contingent\nfuture interests that Williams’s lien attached to, such an\nexemption would be given no effect by a bankruptcy statute\n\f12 No. 18-2726\n\nthat relies on state law. This interpretation leads to an absurd\nresult and could not be what Congress intended.\n Additionally, our reading of the statute is in line with each\nof our sister circuits that have considered the issue. While it\ndoes not appear that those cases involved arguments by the\nparties that required similar exegesis of the statutory text, the\nfact that the no party argued otherwise implies that the statute\nis naturally read as we read it today. See e.g., In re Arango, 992\nF.2d 611, 613 (6th Cir. 1993) (“[W]e must first look to Tennessee\nlaw to classify Arango’s interests in entireties property. We\nthen determine which of those interest is exempt from his\nbankruptcy estate by determining whether each particular\ninterest is subject to execution under Tennessee law” (emphasis\nadded)); Ragsdale v. Genesco, Inc., 674 F.2d 277, 239 (4th Cir.\n1982) (“The phrase ‘to the extent such interest … is exempt\nfrom process under applicable nonbankruptcy law’ is of\ndecisive importance. If the Ragsdales’ residential real property\ncould be reached to satisfy a state court judgment in Virginia,\nit could not be successfully claimed as exempt”); Napotnik v.\nEquibank & Parkvale Sav. Ass’n, 679 F.2d 316 , 322–23 (3d Cir.\n1982) (“Since the debtor’s interest in the real property owned\nwith his wife as tenants by the entirety is not exempt from\nprocess in Pennsylvania because they are joint obligors, he is\nnot entitled to exempt that portion of his equity subject to\nEquibank’s judicial lien, and cannot avoid that lien under\nSection 522(f)”).\n Here, Williams obtained a judgment lien on Jaffe’s contin-\ngent future interest that existed when Jaffe filed his bankruptcy\npetition. The first determination that must be made is whether\nJaffe’s interest is the kind that potentially qualifies for an\n\fNo. 18-2726 13\n\nexemption under § 522(b)(3)(B). Any interest can qualify so\nlong as it is an interest one holds “as a tenant by the entirety.”\nJaffe held his interest as a tenant by the entirety so we must\ndetermine whether the interest is exempt. This requires looking\nto Illinois law to determine whether contingent future interests\nare exempt from process.\n The main protection that Illinois law provides tenants by\nthe entirety is that a creditor is unable to force the sale of the\nproperty to collect a debt against only one of the tenants. 735\nILCS 5/12-112 (2014). Illinois law does not make all interests\nheld by tenants by the entirety immune from process and we\nneed not look hard for a state that does—Indiana law exempts\n“any interest the judgment has in real estate as a tenant by the\nentireties.” Ind. Code § 34-2-28-1(a)(5); In re Paeplow, 972 F.2d\n730, 737 (7th Cir. 1992). Illinois law explicitly refuses to exempt\nincome from entirety properties and fails to provide an\nexemption for the contingent future interests. 765 ILCS 1005/1c;\nsee also Yotis, 518 B.R. at 489–90 (holding that “any future\ninterest that may be held by either tenant alone, such as the\ncontingent future interest, is not exempt at all”). Accordingly,\nwe find that Jaffe is not entitled to an exemption of his contin-\ngent future interest. The district court’s conclusion otherwise\nwas erroneous.\n III. CONCLUSION\n Because the statute exempts an individual’s tenancy\ninterest to the extent that state law exempts that interest, we\nreverse the decision of the district court and remand for further\nproceedings consistent with this opinion.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Laverne Williams v. Scott Jaffe\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-08-05\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\nNo. 18-2726\\n\\nIN RE: SCOTT N. JAFFE,\\n Debtor-Appellee,\\nAPPEAL OF: LAVERNE WILLIAMS.\\n\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 17 C 04662 — John J. Tharp, Jr., Judge.\\n\\n\\n\\n ARGUED FEBRUARY 7, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 5, 2019\\n\\n\\n Before BAUER, HAMILTON, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\\n BAUER, Circuit Judge. Section 522(b)(1) of the United States\\nBankruptcy Code states that a “debtor may exempt from\\nproperty of the [bankruptcy] estate the property listed in either\\nparagraph (2) or, in the alternative paragraph (3).” At issue in\\nthis case is paragraph (3) subsection (B), which states, in full,\\nthat:\\n Property listed in this paragraph is any interest\\n in property which the debtor had, immediately\\n before the commencement of the case, an inter-\\n est as a tenant by the entirety or joint tenant to\\n\\f2 No. 18-2726\\n\\n the extent that such interest as a tenant by the\\n entirety or joint tenant is exempt from process\\n under applicable nonbankruptcy law.\\n11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(3)(B). We must determine to what extent\\ncontingent future interests created by Illinois law are exempt\\nunder this section. The most natural reading of the statute\\nexempts any interest held by an individual as a tenant by the\\nentirety to the extent that state law exempts that particular\\ninterest. The district court found that any interest held by the\\ndebtor is exempt to the extent that state law exempted the\\nentirety interest. We reverse the district court and hold that the\\ndebtor’s property cannot be excluded from the bankruptcy\\nestate.\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n In 1998, Laverne Williams wanted to file a medical malprac-\\ntice lawsuit and hired Scott Jaffe to be her attorney. The statute\\nof limitations expired before Jaffe filed a complaint and\\nWilliams sued for legal malpractice, obtained a default\\njudgment, and recorded that judgment on a property that Jaffe\\nand his wife owned as tenants by the entirety. Williams now\\nclaims post-judgment interest brings her total claim against\\nJaffe to $1.04 million.\\n Jaffe filed a chapter 7 bankruptcy petition in November\\n2015, which identified his debt to Williams and indicated it\\nwas secured by a judgment lien on his residence. On the\\npetition date Jaffe and his wife owned the property as tenants\\nby the entirety, but before bankruptcy proceedings were\\ncomplete Jaffe’s wife died. According to Illinois law, when his\\nwife died the tenancy by the entirety terminated and Jaffe held\\n\\fNo. 18-2726 3\\n\\nthe property individually in fee simple. To avoid the judgment\\nlien Jaffe filed a motion in the bankruptcy court arguing the\\nproperty was exempt under 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(3)(B). Williams\\nresponded that the property was not exempt because the\\nfederal bankruptcy provision that Jaffe relied upon looks to\\nstate law to determine whether a tenancy property is exempt.\\nBecause Illinois does not exempt contingent future interests,\\nWilliams argued, the federal bankruptcy statute does not allow\\nJaffe to exempt the property from the bankruptcy estate. On\\nappeal the parties renew these arguments.\\n II. DISCUSSION\\n We must first determine whether a lien exists and what\\ninterests it attached to. If no lien exists the debtor cannot seek\\nan exemption under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f) and our inquiry is\\ncomplete. See In re Chinosorn, 243 B.R. 688, 694 (Bankr. N.D. Ill.\\n2000) (noting there are “three elements for lien avoidance: (1) a\\nlien must have fixed on an interest of the debtor in property,\\n(2) the lien must impair an exemption to which the debtor\\nwould have been entitled under § 522(b), and (3) the lien must\\nbe a judicial lien—with the debtor bearing the burden of each\\nelement.”). If a lien attached we must also determine to what\\ninterests it attached. Jaffe argues that, if any lien exists, it\\nattached only to his tenancy interest which is exempt under\\nIllinois law. Williams asserts her lien attached to Jaffe’s\\ncontingent future interest in the property. If we determine a\\nlien attached to a property interest we must then determine\\nwhether that interest is exempt under § 522(b)(3)(B). We will\\naddress each issue in turn.\\n\\f4 No. 18-2726\\n\\n A. The Existence of a Lien\\n If a judicial lien attaches to property that is entitled to\\nexemption from the bankruptcy estate, § 522(f) allows the\\ndebtor to avoid the fixing of the lien. See 11 U.S.C. § 522(f).\\nIllinois courts have not decided whether a judgment lien\\nattaches to the individual interests (in particular contingent\\nfuture interests) of a tenant by the entirety. Where a state’s\\nhighest court has not ruled on an issue, we must apply the law\\nin a manner we believe the state supreme court would, if\\npresented with the issue. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Statewide\\nIns. Co., 352 F.3d 1098, 1100 (7th Cir. 2003).\\n To answer this question we turn to the applicable Illinois\\nstatutes, which have long controlled the attachment of judg-\\nment liens. Lehman v. Cottrell, 19 N.E.2d 111, 114 (2d Dist. 1939)\\n(“At common law, land was subject neither to execution nor to\\nthe lien of a judgment. Both these results are purely statu-\\ntory.”). Section 12–101 of the Illinois code creates judgment\\nliens and controls their ability to attach to certain property\\ninterests. The statute dictates that judgment liens may attach to\\nall “real estate” and defines “real estate” broadly to include all\\n“lands, tenements, hereditaments, and all legal and equitable\\nrights therein.” 735 ILCS 5/12–105.\\n The Illinois legislature enumerated the precise interests\\ntenants by the entirety enjoy individually, including the\\nfollowing contingent future interests: “(a) an interest as a\\ntenant in common in the event of a divorce, (b) an interest as a\\njoint tenant in the event that another homestead is established,\\nand (c) a survivorship interest in the entire property in the\\nevent of the other tenant’s death.” 765 ILCS 1005/1c. These\\n\\fNo. 18-2726 5\\n\\ncontingent future interests fall within the statute’s broad\\ndefinition of “real estate.” Therefore, a judgment lien attaches\\nto these individual interests, absent some exception. See In re\\nTolson, 338 B.R. 359, 369 (C.D. Ill. 2005). The only exception that\\n12-101 identifies is section 12-901—the homestead exception.\\nSee 735 ILCS 5/12-901 (the “homestead and all rights in and\\ntitle to that homestead is exempt from attachment, judgment,\\nlevy or judgment sale for the payment of his or her debts or\\nother purposes … .”).\\n Otherwise, “where the Illinois legislature has determined\\nthat a judgment lien should not be created as to a debtor’s\\ninterest in particular property, it has provided that\\nthe property is ‘exempt from judgment,’ see 735 ILCS 5/12-1001\\n(specified personal property), or that it is not ‘subject to any\\nlien,’ see 820 ILCS 305/21 (workers’ compensation award).”\\nChinosorn, 243 B.R. at 695–95. But Illinois does not “exempt\\nfrom judgment” interests held in tenancy by the entirety or\\ncontingent future interests held by tenants by the entirety.\\nIllinois law merely exempts the tenancy interest from the\\nattachment of a judgment lien. 735 ILCS 5/12-112. Section 12-\\n112 provides that judgment liens may attach to all “lands,\\ntenements, goods and chattels.” It then carves out a narrow\\nexception, the tenancy interest, without mentioning the\\ncontingent future interests explicitly created by the Illinois\\nlegislature.\\n It is clear that if the Illinois legislature wanted to exempt\\nparticular interests from the attachment of judgment liens, it\\nhad no problem in doing so. Because the Illinois legislature\\nfailed to do so, we find that Williams’s judgment lien attached\\nto Jaffe’s contingent future interest in the property. See Yotis,\\n\\f6 No. 18-2726\\n\\n518 B.R. at 486–90; Tolson, 338 B.R. at 367 (holding that “the\\ncontingent right of survivorship of each entireties tenant is a\\npresent property right to which a judgment lien extends.”).\\n B. Exemption Under § 522(b)(3)(B)\\n Tenancy by the entirety is a form of property ownership\\nthat arose out of common law and developed as part of the\\nEnglish feudal system. Oval A. Phipps, Tenancy by the Entire-\\nties, 25 Temp. L.Q. 24 (1951). Until the nineteenth century,\\nmarried women in the United States were subject to coverture.\\nThis meant a wife’s legal identity and property were absorbed\\nby her husband and he was granted legal dominion over\\neverything. Id. Therefore, if a married couple purchased\\nproperty, it could not be owned by the husband and wife\\nbecause both spouses were considered a single legal entity (the\\nhusband). Id. Tenancy by the entirety was created so spouses\\ncould own property jointly and upon the death of one spouse\\nthe property would belong to the surviving spouse. Then,\\n“during the middle and latter part of the nineteenth century,\\nas part of a reform movement aimed at emancipating married\\nwomen from their state of social and economic dependency,\\nthe Married Women’s Property Acts were enacted practically\\nuniversally by the legislatures of the several states.” Id.\\n Following the passage of the Married Women’s Property\\nActs, states splintered in their approach to tenancy by the\\nentirety. Many state courts thought the acts destroyed tenancy\\nby the entirety and a few courts held they were unaffected;\\nseveral state courts gave both spouses the rights of the hus-\\nband under common law and a large number of states found\\nboth spouses had only the limited interests a wife previously\\n\\fNo. 18-2726 7\\n\\nhad under common law. Chinosorn, 243 B.R. at 692–93 (collect-\\ning cases). States also divided over whether tenancy by the\\nentirety encompassed real property and personal property, or\\njust real property. Id. at 693. The Illinois judiciary found that\\nthe state’s Married Women’s Act abolished tenancy by the\\nentirety but, in 1990, the legislature codified tenancy by the\\nentirety for real estate owned by spouses who were using the\\nproperty as their homestead. 765 ILCS 1005/1c.\\n Jurisdictions that recognize tenancy by the entirety,\\nhowever, are not uniform in their approach to creditors’ rights\\nagainst the estate:\\n A creditor’s right to levy on a married person’s\\n property is complex, and varies by state and the\\n type of debt and property. Every state allows\\n satisfaction of a debt which has been jointly\\n incurred by a husband and wife against jointly\\n held property, even if that property is held in a\\n tenancy by the entirety … . Some states allow\\n the satisfaction of an individual spouse’s debt\\n against entireties property, but most do not.\\nCreditors’ Rights Against Entireties Property In and Out of\\nBankruptcy, 1983 Ann. Surv. of Bankr. Law Part II (September\\n1983). With this kaleidoscopic background in mind, we turn\\nto the bankruptcy aspect of this case.\\n A debtor’s bankruptcy estate must include “all legal or\\nequitable interests of the debtor in property as of the com-\\nmencement of the case.” 11 U.S.C. § 541(a). This includes an\\nindividual debtor’s interest in property held as a tenant by the\\nentirety. In re Hunter, 970 F.2d 299, 303 (7th Cir. 1992); Napotnik\\n\\f8 No. 18-2726\\n\\nv. Equibank & Parkvale Savings Association, 679 F.2d 316 (3d Cir.\\n1982). All property in the estate is liquidated by the bankruptcy\\ntrustee and the proceeds are distributed to creditors based on\\ntheir priority. 11 U.S.C. § 704. But the Bankruptcy Code allows\\ndebtors to exempt certain estate property. Exempt property is\\nremoved from the estate and retained by the debtor.\\nSection 522(b)(3)(B) exempts:\\n [a]ny interest in property in which the debtor\\n had, immediately before the commencement of\\n the case, an interest as a tenant by the entirety or\\n joint tenant to the extent that such interest as a\\n tenant by the entirety or joint tenant is exempt\\n from process under applicable nonbankruptcy\\n law.\\nThe law of co-tenancies is almost exclusively a matter of state\\nlaw since there is no general federal property law, therefore,\\nthe “applicable nonbankruptcy law” is Illinois law. The\\nquestion here is to what extent § 522(b)(3)(B) exempts Jaffe’s\\ncontingent future interest in the tenancy property. There is no\\ndispute that a lien that attached to Jaffe’s tenancy interest would\\nbe exempt. However, the nub of this case lies in the exemption\\nof the lesser interests that are not exempted under Illinois law.\\n The district court interpreted § 522(b)(3)(B) to exempt\\nJaffe’s contingent future interest in the entireties property,\\ndespite the fact that Illinois provides no exemption for these\\ninterests. In reaching this conclusion the district court parti-\\ntioned the statutory language into four elements:\\n § 522(b)(3)(B) exempts: (i) any interest in prop-\\n erty; (ii) in which the debtor had an interest as a\\n\\fNo. 18-2726 9\\n\\n tenant in the entirety; (iii) at the time the bank-\\n ruptcy petition was filed; (iv) to the extent that\\n state law exempts an interest as tenant in the\\n entirety from legal process.\\nJaffe v. Williams, No. 1:17-cv-4662, slip op. at *4 (N.D. Ill.\\nMay 22, 2018). The district court noted that Jaffe had an interest\\nas a tenant by the entirety (as well as contingent future\\ninterests) at the time the bankruptcy petition was filed (satisfy-\\ning the first three elements). The district court then concluded\\nthat any interest he held (contingent future interests included)\\nwas exempt to the extent that the tenancy interest was exempt\\nunder Illinois law. And since Illinois exempts the tenancy\\ninterest, more specifically the forced sale of the tenancy\\nproperty to collect a debt against just one tenant, all other\\ninterests Jaffe had as a tenancy by the entirety were exempt\\ncompletely.\\n But the fourth element of the district court’s analysis left\\nout a key word—“such.” Section 522(b)(3)(B) exempts certain\\ninterests “to the extent that such interest as a tenant by the\\nentirety” is exempt under state law. By not giving sufficient\\nweight to the word “such,” the district court interpreted the\\nstatute to mean that any property interest is exempt to the\\nextent that the entirety interest is exempt. But identifying what\\n“such” refers to is the main interpretive issue in this case. If\\n“such” refers just to “any interest,” as Jaffe argues, the district\\ncourt’s conclusion is correct because the statute would exempt\\n“any interest” the debtor had to the extent that any tenancy\\ninterest is exempt from state law. However, if “such interest”\\nrefers to something more limited, like the precise interests the\\n\\f10 No. 18-2726\\n\\ndebtor was seeking to exempt, the district court’s interpreta-\\ntion is incorrect.\\n Section 522(b)(3)(B) begins broadly by stating it exempts\\n“any interest in property.” The provision goes on to state that\\nthe debtor must have an interest in the property “as a tenant by\\nthe entirety” in order to claim an exemption, thus cabining “any\\ninterest in property.” This means that if, for example, a tenant\\nby the entirety transferred her interest in the income the\\nproperty generated, the transferee could not claim an exemp-\\ntion under § 522(b)(3)(B) since she does not hold the interest as\\na tenant by the entirety. The provision goes on to state that the\\nexemption applies “to the extent that such interests as a tenant\\nby the entirety,” meaning the precise interests that the debtor\\nholds as a tenant by the entirety, are exempt under state law.\\n We read this provision to establish two things. First, the\\nopening language indicates the interests that may qualify for\\nexemptions—any interest the debtor has, so long as she holds\\nthat interest as a tenant by the entirety. The provision then\\ndefines which of those qualifying interests are exempt—all of\\nthe debtor’s qualifying interests to the extent that they are\\nexempt under applicable nonbankruptcy law. Our reading of\\nthe statute yields a simple result—interests a debtor holds as\\na tenant by the entirety are exempt to the extent that those\\ninterests the debtor holds as a tenant by the entirety are exempt\\nunder state law.\\n The statutory language does not support the argument that\\n“such interest as a tenant by the entirety” is referring more\\nbroadly to “any interest in property” as Jaffe argues. It is much\\nmore sensible to read “such interest” as referring to the\\n\\fNo. 18-2726 11\\n\\ncomplete introductory phrase, which identifies the debtor’s\\nspecific interests that potentially qualify for an exemption.\\nAdditionally, the signifier (“such interest”) and referent\\n(“interest as a tenant by the entirety”) use mirroring language\\nindicating that the latter is referring to the former: “property in\\nwhich the debtor had … an interest as a tenant by the entirety …\\nto the extent that such interest as a tenant by the entirety” is\\nexempt. This buttresses the conclusion that “such interest” was\\nmeant to refer to the specific interests that the debtor held as a\\ntenant by the entirety, rather than only referring to “any\\ninterest.”\\n Given the variety of rights, interests, and exemptions in\\ntenancy by the entirety, it is likely that Congress enacted\\n§ 522(b)(3)(B) to reflect the full spectrum of different ap-\\nproaches states have taken. See Chinosorn, 243 B.R. at 700 (“the\\napparent intent of the provision is to provide, in bankruptcy,\\na level of protection from claims of creditors identical to the\\nprotection that owners of entireties property would have in\\ncollection proceedings outside of bankruptcy, under applicable\\nstate law.”). “Any interest in property in which the debtor\\nhad … an interest” is broad, inclusive language that signals\\nthat all state exemptions for tenants by the entirety will be\\nhonored in federal bankruptcy court. But the district court’s\\nreading would mean that no matter how nuanced state\\nexemptions for tenants by the entirety are, all interests would\\nbe exempt if the state exempts the entirety interest. This means\\nthat if Illinois decided to explicitly exempt the contingent\\nfuture interests that Williams’s lien attached to, such an\\nexemption would be given no effect by a bankruptcy statute\\n\\f12 No. 18-2726\\n\\nthat relies on state law. This interpretation leads to an absurd\\nresult and could not be what Congress intended.\\n Additionally, our reading of the statute is in line with each\\nof our sister circuits that have considered the issue. While it\\ndoes not appear that those cases involved arguments by the\\nparties that required similar exegesis of the statutory text, the\\nfact that the no party argued otherwise implies that the statute\\nis naturally read as we read it today. See e.g., In re Arango, 992\\nF.2d 611, 613 (6th Cir. 1993) (“[W]e must first look to Tennessee\\nlaw to classify Arango’s interests in entireties property. We\\nthen determine which of those interest is exempt from his\\nbankruptcy estate by determining whether each particular\\ninterest is subject to execution under Tennessee law” (emphasis\\nadded)); Ragsdale v. Genesco, Inc., 674 F.2d 277, 239 (4th Cir.\\n1982) (“The phrase ‘to the extent such interest … is exempt\\nfrom process under applicable nonbankruptcy law’ is of\\ndecisive importance. If the Ragsdales’ residential real property\\ncould be reached to satisfy a state court judgment in Virginia,\\nit could not be successfully claimed as exempt”); Napotnik v.\\nEquibank & Parkvale Sav. Ass’n, 679 F.2d 316 , 322–23 (3d Cir.\\n1982) (“Since the debtor’s interest in the real property owned\\nwith his wife as tenants by the entirety is not exempt from\\nprocess in Pennsylvania because they are joint obligors, he is\\nnot entitled to exempt that portion of his equity subject to\\nEquibank’s judicial lien, and cannot avoid that lien under\\nSection 522(f)”).\\n Here, Williams obtained a judgment lien on Jaffe’s contin-\\ngent future interest that existed when Jaffe filed his bankruptcy\\npetition. The first determination that must be made is whether\\nJaffe’s interest is the kind that potentially qualifies for an\\n\\fNo. 18-2726 13\\n\\nexemption under § 522(b)(3)(B). Any interest can qualify so\\nlong as it is an interest one holds “as a tenant by the entirety.”\\nJaffe held his interest as a tenant by the entirety so we must\\ndetermine whether the interest is exempt. This requires looking\\nto Illinois law to determine whether contingent future interests\\nare exempt from process.\\n The main protection that Illinois law provides tenants by\\nthe entirety is that a creditor is unable to force the sale of the\\nproperty to collect a debt against only one of the tenants. 735\\nILCS 5/12-112 (2014). Illinois law does not make all interests\\nheld by tenants by the entirety immune from process and we\\nneed not look hard for a state that does—Indiana law exempts\\n“any interest the judgment has in real estate as a tenant by the\\nentireties.” Ind. Code § 34-2-28-1(a)(5); In re Paeplow, 972 F.2d\\n730, 737 (7th Cir. 1992). Illinois law explicitly refuses to exempt\\nincome from entirety properties and fails to provide an\\nexemption for the contingent future interests. 765 ILCS 1005/1c;\\nsee also Yotis, 518 B.R. at 489–90 (holding that “any future\\ninterest that may be held by either tenant alone, such as the\\ncontingent future interest, is not exempt at all”). Accordingly,\\nwe find that Jaffe is not entitled to an exemption of his contin-\\ngent future interest. The district court’s conclusion otherwise\\nwas erroneous.\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n Because the statute exempts an individual’s tenancy\\ninterest to the extent that state law exempts that interest, we\\nreverse the decision of the district court and remand for further\\nproceedings consistent with this opinion.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3788,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4645741,"string":"4,645,741"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"United States v. Otis Hunter"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-08-05"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-2013"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before FLAUM, KANNE, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"Michael Stephen Kanne\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044\\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\\n Plaintiff‐Appellee,\\n v.\\n\\nOTIS HUNTER and\\nDESHAWN EVANS,\\n Defendants‐Appellants.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeals from the United States District Court for the\\n Eastern District of Wisconsin.\\n Nos. 17‐CR‐29‐2 and 17‐CR‐29‐4 — J.P. Stadtmueller, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED APRIL 5, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 5, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before FLAUM, KANNE, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.\\n KANNE, Circuit Judge. Police arrested five men involved in\\na string of Milwaukee armed robberies in late 2016. Three of\\nthe defendants cooperated with the government and pled\\nguilty. The two remaining defendants, Otis Hunter and\\nDeshawn Evans, proceeded to trial where a jury convicted\\nthem. Through counsel, the pair challenges the district court’s\\nhandling of jury selection and denial of their Batson challenge.\\n\\f2 Nos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044\\n\\nThey also challenge our circuit precedent and argue that the\\ndistrict court violated the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation\\nClause when it prevented them from cross‐examining gov‐\\nernment witnesses about the specific prison terms they\\navoided through their cooperation. After obtaining authori‐\\nzation from the court, Hunter made additional, pro se argu‐\\nments challenging how the trial court handled witness testi‐\\nmony and whether the government provided sufficient evi‐\\ndence to support his conviction. All challenges are rejected\\nand we affirm.\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n Authorities arrested five men in connection with a series\\nof crimes in late 2016: Dominique Rollins, Otis Hunter, Kelly\\nScott, Deshawn Evans, and Anthony Lindsey. Rollins, Scott,\\nand Lindsey pled guilty and testified for the government, but\\nHunter and Evans proceeded to trial.\\n The government connected the defendants to the follow‐\\ning crimes. First, on November 17, 2016, Hunter, Rollins, and\\nScott committed an armed robbery of a Roman’s Food Market.\\nThey held up an employee, made him open the cash register,\\nstruck him on the head with a pistol, and then took the money\\nand a large quantity of Newport cigarettes. Surveillance foot‐\\nage captured the robbery. Rollins and Scott testified at trial\\nthat they robbed the store with Hunter. They also narrated the\\nsurveillance footage and identified Hunter and his pistol. At\\nthe time of the robberies, Doris Brown—Lindsey’s mother\\nand Scott’s fiancée—lived at a house on 15th Place where the\\ndefendants regularly congregated. She later testified that she\\nsaw Hunter with many packs of Newport cigarettes. She also\\nviewed the surveillance footage and identified the robbers.\\n\\fNos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044 3\\n\\n Three days later, on November 20, two men committed an\\narmed carjacking of a food delivery driver outside of Aurora\\nSinai Hospital. The robbers struck the driver on the head with\\na pistol, took his phone, car keys, and wallet, and fled in his\\nblack Cadillac CTS. Surveillance footage captured the rob‐\\nbery. Scott and Lindsey viewed the footage at trial and iden‐\\ntified the pair as Hunter and Evans.\\n Then on November 22, three men with stocking‐covered\\nfaces robbed a George Webb restaurant. Two of the robbers\\nbrandished pistols. They took $70 in cash and some receipts\\nfrom the register and held up employees. The three fled the\\nscene in a black Cadillac. As before, surveillance footage cap‐\\ntured the robbery. Scott and Lindsey confessed to robbing the\\nrestaurant with Hunter and identified Hunter and Scott at\\ntrial as the pair who brandished firearms.\\n A day after the George Webb robbery, on November 23,\\npolice found the black Cadillac CTS parked near the home on\\n15th Place where the defendants met. Inside the car, they\\nfound receipts from the George Webb restaurant and a nylon\\nstocking. DNA recovered from the stocking linked it to de‐\\nfendant Anthony Lindsey.\\n On November 25, two men attempted to rob a Walgreens\\npharmacy at gunpoint. One of the two men brandished a pis‐\\ntol and pointed it at the cashier. When the cashier failed to\\nopen the register, the robber struck him on the head with the\\npistol, knocking him to the ground. The robbers also failed to\\nopen the register. They instead attempted to rob the custom‐\\ners as a consolation but recovered no valuables. Surveillance\\nfootage captured the attempted robbery. Lindsey, Scott, and\\nDoris Brown viewed the footage at trial and identified the rob‐\\n\\f4 Nos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044\\n\\nbers as defendants Hunter and Evans, with Evans brandish‐\\ning the firearm and striking the cashier. Brown also testified\\nthat she overheard Hunter discussing the Walgreen’s robbery\\nat her house.\\n On December 4, two men carjacked the owner of a Ford\\nFocus. They cornered the victim against the side of the car,\\none pressed a firearm into the victim’s stomach, and they\\nrobbed him, taking his credit cards, phone, and wallet before\\nmaking their escape in his vehicle. About 30 minutes after the\\ncarjacking, the robbers used the victim’s credit cards at a Foot\\nLocker store. The Foot Locker’s surveillance footage from the\\ntime of the purchase showed Hunter there, accompanied by a\\nminor. The victim identified the pair as the carjackers through\\nphotographs and later identified Hunter in court as the car‐\\njacker who pressed the pistol into his stomach. Brown, Scott,\\nLindsey, and Rollins each viewed the surveillance footage\\nand identified Hunter.\\n On December 5, the stolen Ford Focus turned up parked\\nbehind the house on 15th Place. Police arrested Evans, the mi‐\\nnor, and Anthony Lindsey in the car. Hunter—on‐the‐run—\\nwas arrested five days later in Ohio. Hunter’s vehicle con‐\\ntained new Foot Locker merchandise and multiple Foot\\nLocker receipts dated December 4, which reflected purchases\\nmade with the credit cards taken during the Ford Focus car‐\\njacking.\\n The grand jury returned an 11‐count indictment against\\nthe five men. Relevant to this appeal, Hunter was charged\\nwith conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371), robbery of the Roman’s\\nFood Market under the Hobbs Act (18 U.S.C. § 1951), carjack‐\\ning the Cadillac (18 U.S.C. § 2119), robbery of the George\\nWebb restaurant under the Hobbs Act, attempted robbery of\\n\\fNos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044 5\\n\\nthe Walgreens under the Hobbs Act, and carjacking the Ford\\nFocus. Hunter was also charged with brandishing a firearm\\nduring each of these crimes in violation of 18 U.S.C.\\n§ 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). Evans faced charges for conspiracy, carjack‐\\ning the Cadillac, and the attempted robbery at Walgreens. He\\nwas also charged with brandishing a firearm during these\\ncrimes.\\n Hunter and Evans—who are both African Americans—\\nproceeded to a jury trial. As a preface to jury selection, the\\ncourt questioned all potential jurors about their experiences\\ntestifying under oath in the judicial system and the courts.\\nHowever, multiple jurors failed to disclose relevant infor‐\\nmation related to this line of questioning. During jury selec‐\\ntion, the government struck several jurors for cause and used\\nits peremptory strikes. The entire jury pool included just three\\npotential African American jurors. The initial voir dire in‐\\ncluded only two. One of these two, Juror 12, was eventually\\nempaneled.\\n The government questioned the other potential African\\nAmerican juror, Juror 7, about an allegedly racially‐charged\\nFacebook post on her profile. The government also learned\\nthat Juror 7’s family had significant contacts with the criminal\\njustice system and she personally had other abject experiences\\nwith the courts. Specifically, Juror 7’s son has been adjudi‐\\ncated delinquent on multiple occasions, and her ex‐husband\\nwas occasionally imprisoned following numerous convic‐\\ntions. During one of her ex‐husband’s arrests, authorities\\nseized her firearm, which she later petitioned a court to re‐\\ncover. Juror 7 had also been through multiple eviction pro‐\\nceedings, a bankruptcy, and received adverse judgments for\\nfailing to pay utility bills. Altogether, during the first round\\n\\f6 Nos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044\\n\\nof voir dire questioning, Juror 7 never disclosed a number of\\nher contacts with the courts and criminal justice system.\\n The government moved to exclude Juror 7 for cause, but\\nthe district court denied the motion. Before defense counsel\\neven raised an objection, the district court specifically warned\\nthe government that if it moved to strike Juror 7, the court\\nwould conduct a Batson hearing. The government neverthe‐\\nless used one of its peremptory strikes against Juror 7. Before\\nthe district court swore in the selected panel, the defendants\\nraised a Batson challenge.\\n During the Batson hearing, the government explained that\\nit struck Juror 7 due to her numerous abject engagements with\\nlaw enforcement and the courts. In response, defense counsel\\nlaid out examples that it argued demonstrated the govern‐\\nment’s disparate treatment of similarly‐situated white jurors.\\nIt pointed out that the government never attempted to strike\\nthree other jurors who also had similar judicial encounters.\\nMoreover, the defense pointed out that Juror 35, a white male,\\nhad been recently charged with firearm‐related offenses but\\nfound not guilty by reason of temporary insanity. Addition‐\\nally, the defense suggested that the government’s questions\\nabout Juror 7’s Facebook posts demonstrated the impermissi‐\\nble, racial motivation for the strike. For its part, the govern‐\\nment explained that it was not previously aware of Juror 35’s\\nidentity or background and directed the court’s attention to a\\nlist of potential jurors that the court gave to the parties a week\\nearlier. That list did not include Juror 35. The court deter‐\\nmined that it needed to investigate the matter. It ordered the\\nparties to submit same‐day briefing on the Batson challenge\\nand adjourned for the day.\\n\\fNos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044 7\\n\\n On the second day of trial, the district court determined\\nthat the clerk’s office failed to include information about Juror\\n35 and several others in the materials it distributed to the par‐\\nties.1 The court allowed the parties to conduct supplemental\\nvoir dire for a few jurors, beginning with Juror 5, whom de‐\\nfense counsel identified during its Batson challenge as an ex‐\\nample of the government’s disparate treatment. On further\\nquestioning, despite initially claiming to have never been in‐\\nvolved with the courts, Juror 5 admitted that he experienced\\na foreclosure and a bankruptcy years earlier but claimed he\\ndid not understand the court’s earlier questions about previ‐\\nous court experience.\\n The parties then questioned Juror 35, a white man. The ad‐\\nditional questions revealed that Juror 35 suffered from PTSD\\nand was found not guilty by reason of a temporary mental\\ndeficiency to three counts related to an incident involving his\\ndischarging a firearm. Juror 35 also disclosed a divorce and a\\nbankruptcy. The government then moved to strike Juror 35\\nfor cause.\\n Next, the court allowed the government to conduct sup‐\\nplemental voir dire questioning of Juror 36, a white woman.\\nThe government’s questioning revealed that Juror 36’s\\nbrother had been convicted of a sexual assault of a minor\\nmore than 30 years earlier. She too had been through a divorce\\nand a bankruptcy years earlier.\\n After the parties finished supplemental voir dire of Juror\\n36, the bailiff informed the court that Juror 35 was in the re‐\\nstroom, vomiting. The government renewed its motion to\\n\\n\\n 1 The record does not clearly identify the other affected jurors.\\n\\f8 Nos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044\\n\\nstrike Juror 35 for cause, which the court granted over\\nHunter’s counsel’s objection.\\n To remedy the confusion regarding missing juror infor‐\\nmation, the district court then started jury selection over from\\nthe same venire. The district court asked all potential jurors,\\nagain, about their involvement with the court systems, giving\\nexplicit examples of different types of relevant proceedings\\nwhere they might have been sworn and given testimony.\\nMultiple jurors then acknowledged that they should have re‐\\nsponded affirmatively to a similar question the day before.\\nThe parties selected a new panel and the government re‐\\nnewed its peremptory strike against Juror 7. However, this\\ntime it also used a peremptory strike on Juror 36.\\n The defense again objected under Batson, arguing that the\\ngovernment treated Juror 7 differently based on her race. The\\ngovernment explained that it struck all jurors who had nega‐\\ntive experiences with the criminal justice system. The defense\\nreplied that the government used its strikes as a pretext for\\nexcluding Juror 7. The defense also complained that the\\ncourt’s process of going back and re‐examining the other po‐\\ntential jurors enabled the government to make a post‐hoc jus‐\\ntification of its impermissible, race‐based strike.\\n The district court concluded the defendants failed to es‐\\ntablish that the government struck Juror 7 on account of her\\nrace. The court noted that, altogether, the government exe‐\\ncuted peremptory strikes on six jurors: five white jurors and\\nJuror 7. Similarly, the court recognized that the government\\narticulated a legitimate, race‐neutral reason for striking Juror\\n7, and that the government struck other similarly‐situated\\nwhite jurors. The district court then swore in the jury, which\\nincluded one African American juror, Juror 12.\\n\\fNos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044 9\\n\\n As previously mentioned, three of the original defendants\\npled guilty and testified for the government. During their tes‐\\ntimony, defense counsel sought to impeach these witnesses\\non the basis that they each benefitted from reduced sentences\\nby virtue of their cooperation with the government. However,\\nat the government’s objection, the district court limited this\\ncross‐examination. Because each of the witnesses originally\\nfaced similar charges to Hunter and Evans, the government\\nworried jurors might deduce the potential imprisonment\\nterms that Hunter and Evans faced. The district court permit‐\\nted cross‐examination about the sentence reduction, but ex‐\\ncluded questioning about the specific terms of their possible\\nsentences.\\n The government also called Steven Strasser, an investiga‐\\ntor at the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office, to tes‐\\ntify at trial. The government never identified Strasser as either\\nan expert or a summary witness ahead of trial, but Strasser\\nbegan his testimony drawing on his professional experiences\\nand his general observations from reviewing hundreds of rob‐\\nberies. After Strasser began to draw comparisons between the\\nsurveillance videos from the different robberies to show con‐\\nsistent patterns, the defense objected. The court found that the\\ngovernment should have designated Strasser as a summary\\nwitness and, because it failed to do so, Strasser’s testimony\\nshould be limited. The court also determined that the testi‐\\nmony was cumulative because the evidence the government\\nexpected him to testify to spoke for itself. The district court\\nlimited Strasser’s testimony to issues of his own involvement\\nin the case. Neither party asked for a curative instruction to\\nthe jury for the testimony that Strasser gave before the de‐\\nfendants’ objection. The district court provided no curative or\\nlimiting instruction.\\n\\f10 Nos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044\\n\\n The jury convicted Hunter and Evans. The district court\\nsentenced them to their mandatory minimum sentences plus\\none day: 107 years for Hunter and 32 years for Evans.\\n II. ANALYSIS\\n On appeal, Hunter and Evans share two main arguments.\\nFirst, the pair argues that the district court erred by rejecting\\ntheir Batson challenge. Second, they argue that the district\\ncourt improperly limited cross‐examination of the govern‐\\nment’s cooperating witnesses about reductions in their poten‐\\ntial sentences.\\n Despite receiving appointed counsel, Hunter also sought\\nand received permission from the court to raise additional ar‐\\nguments, pro se. He objects, pro se, along three lines. First, he\\nmaintains that the district court should have excluded some\\nwitness testimony as hearsay or unduly prejudicial. Second,\\nHunter claims that the district court erred by failing to pro‐\\nvide a curative instruction advising the jury to ignore a por‐\\ntion of Strasser’s testimony. Lastly, Hunter believes that the\\ngovernment proffered insufficient evidence to prove the inter‐\\nstate‐commerce elements on two of the business robberies\\nand the mens rea elements of carjacking.\\n A. The District Court Committed No Error By Rejecting the\\n Batson Challenge\\n Hunter and Evans argue that the district court failed to\\nconduct an adequate Batson inquiry and also improperly ac‐\\ncepted the government’s “implausible” race‐neutral rationale\\nfor striking Juror 7. We review the district court’s finding on\\na Batson challenge for clear error. United States v. Carter, 111\\nF.3d 509, 512 (7th Cir. 1997). “[T]o reverse we must have a firm\\nand definite conviction that a mistake was made.” United\\n\\fNos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044 11\\n\\nStates v. Taylor, 636 F.3d 901, 905 (7th Cir. 2011) (quotation\\nomitted). The Supreme Court has described our standard of\\nreview as “highly deferential.” See Flowers v. Mississippi, 139\\nS. Ct. 2228, 2244 (2019).\\n In Batson, the Supreme Court determined that “the Equal\\nProtection Clause forbids the prosecutor to challenge poten‐\\ntial jurors solely on account of their race or on the assumption\\nthat black jurors as a group will be unable impartially to con‐\\nsider the State’s case against a black defendant.” Batson v. Ken‐\\ntucky, 476 U.S. 79, 89 (1986).\\n There are three steps to a Batson challenge. First, the de‐\\nfendant makes a prima facie showing that the prosecution’s\\nperemptory strikes were discriminatory. Id. at 93‐94. Second,\\nthe government must tender a nonracial reason for the use of\\nits peremptory strike. Id. Lastly, the district court must decide\\nwhether the defendant established purposeful discrimina‐\\ntion. Id. Where the prosecution has “offered a race‐neutral ex‐\\nplanation for the peremptory challenge, the test is com‐\\npressed down to the ultimate question of intentional discrim‐\\nination; the preliminary question of a prima facie case becomes\\nmoot.” Carter, 111 F.3d at 512 n.1 (citing Hernandez v. New\\nYork, 500 U.S. 352, 359 (1991)).\\n Fundamentally, Hunter and Evans seem to believe that be‐\\ncause the court restarted jury selection from the same panel,\\nthe government had time to come up with an ostensibly legit‐\\nimate excuse for striking Juror 7. They charge that the govern‐\\nment clearly demonstrated its impermissible racial motiva‐\\ntion by failing to investigate and strike similarly‐situated ju‐\\nrors. Consequently, they believe they met their Batson burden\\nwith the first panel, but the government was able to hide its\\ndiscriminatory purpose by striking other potential jurors on\\n\\f12 Nos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044\\n\\nsimilar grounds in the second, “redo” panel. The “redo”\\npanel, therefore, deprived them of a valid Batson challenge\\nand prejudiced them.\\n Viewing the whole record, we believe the district court ul‐\\ntimately committed no clear error. But two arguments which\\nHunter and Evans make merit further discussion. First, the\\ngovernment did not ask all other potential jurors the same\\nnumber of probing questions about relationships with the\\ncourts or the criminal justice system. However, it appears that\\nmany of those other jurors (like Juror 7) either failed to dis‐\\nclose all the details they should have or did not understand\\nthis line of questioning. The district court attempted to correct\\nthe jury issues on the “redo” panel by clarifying the question\\nfor the potential jurors. When the government learned of oth‐\\ners’ contacts with the courts, it struck those jurors, too.\\n Second, the government initially did not strike Juror 35,\\ndespite his recent and serious criminal charges. But the clerk’s\\noffice failed to distribute an updated potential juror list to the\\nparties, so the government had no opportunity to investigate\\nand strike Juror 35, as it did other jurors. This error demon‐\\nstrates that the government’s different treatment of Juror 35\\nwas motivated by ignorance, not race. The district court cor‐\\nrected the error when it afforded the parties an opportunity\\nto conduct additional questioning.\\n The record reflects the district court’s Batson concerns. The\\ncourt advised the government that the parties would conduct\\na full Batson hearing if the government used a peremptory\\nstrike against Juror 7. The court also provided a long explana‐\\ntion to the parties as to why it denied the defendants’ Batson\\nchallenge. The defendants urged that the court’s “redo” al‐\\n\\fNos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044 13\\n\\nlowed the government to cure its pretextual excuse for strik‐\\ning Juror 7 by also striking similarly‐situated white jurors.\\nThey argue that this effectively allowed the government to ex‐\\npand its facially race‐neutral rationale, conflicting with Taylor.\\nThat case involved multiple remands from our court to the\\ndistrict court for further exploration of the government’s prof‐\\nfered reason for striking an African American juror. However,\\nwhen the district court conducted another Batson hearing to\\nsupplement the record on remand, “the government took the\\nopportunity to expand on its rationale for striking [the juror],\\nadvancing seven new reasons[.]” Taylor, 636 F.3d at 904. We\\nheld that “[a]ccepting new, unrelated reasons extending well\\nbeyond the prosecutor’s original justification for striking [a\\njuror] amounts to clear error.” Id. at 906.\\n Here, the district court never swore the jury, but instead\\nstarted selection over after new information came to light. The\\ngovernment’s justification for striking Juror 7 remained con‐\\nsistent throughout the whole process. In the wake of a clerical\\nerror, the court’s voir dire process sought to reveal all neces‐\\nsary juror information to benefit the parties. To ensure a fair\\ntrial, the district court had the parties start over in selecting\\nand striking jurors. The district court’s restart process allowed\\nthe government to apply its rationale more evenly and fairly,\\nbut not to expand it. Even if we agree that the district court\\ncould have conducted a more perfect jury selection by starting\\nover with a new panel, we do not believe the district court’s\\n“redo” in this case constituted clear error. The Supreme Court\\nexpressly declined to mandate a procedural approach for\\nhandling jury selection after a party raises a Batson challenge.\\nBatson, 476 U.S. at 99 (“We decline, however, to formulate par‐\\nticular procedures to be followed upon a defendant’s timely\\nobjection to a prosecutor’s challenges.”). See also id. at n.24\\n\\f14 Nos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044\\n\\n(noting the variety of jury selection processes employed in\\nAmerican courts). The district court provided a fair procedure\\nfor jury selection in this case. United States v. Mannie, 509 F.3d\\n851, 857 (7th Cir. 2007) (“It is axiomatic in our system of justice\\nthat an individual is entitled to a fair trial—not a perfect\\none.”).\\n B. The District Court Properly Limited Defense Counsel’s\\n Cross‐Examination of Government Witnesses\\n Hunter and Evans argue that the district court erred by\\npreventing them from cross‐examining the government’s wit‐\\nnesses about the specific mandatory minimum sentences they\\navoided by cooperating with the government. They believe\\nthe district court’s limitation violated the Sixth Amendment’s\\nConfrontation Clause.\\n “Our standard of review when a district court limits the\\ndefendant’s cross‐examination depends on whether the\\ncourt’s limit directly implicates the core values of the Con‐\\nfrontation Clause. If so, we review the limit de novo. If not, we\\nreview the limit only for abuse of discretion.” United States v.\\nTrent, 863 F.3d 699, 704 (7th Cir. 2017) (internal quotations\\nomitted).\\n To advance their argument, Hunter and Evans directly\\nchallenge and invite us to overturn our opinion in United\\nStates v. Trent. We decline their invitation. In Trent, we held\\nthat limiting cross‐examination of government witnesses\\nabout specific sentences and the sentencing guideline ranges\\nthey faced before and after their cooperation with the govern‐\\nment did not violate a defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights.\\n863 F.3d at 706. We explained that to satisfy the Confrontation\\nClause, it is enough that a defendant can elicit that witnesses\\n\\fNos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044 15\\n\\nwill receive a “substantial” reduction in imprisonment. Id.\\nThis limitation is sometimes necessary when criminal defend‐\\nants and government witnesses face the same criminal\\ncharges. We explained that if the jury learned about the pre‐\\ncise sentence terms that government witnesses faced, then it\\ncould deduce or infer the sentences facing the similarly‐\\ncharged defendants. Id. Consequently, the reality of a serious\\nsentence could prejudice the jury and cause it to acquit the\\ndefendants of crimes they actually committed. Id.\\n Hunter and Evans claim that Trent overstates the risk of\\nprejudice from cross‐examination about the mandatory mini‐\\nmum sentences. They argue Trent violates the Confrontation\\nClause and suggest that other circuits disagree with our anal‐\\nysis. To support this claim, Hunter and Evans cite cases from\\nthree other circuits. See United States v. Chandler, 326 F.3d 210\\n(3d Cir. 2003); United States v. Cooks, 52 F.3d 101 (5th Cir. 1995);\\nUnited States v. Larson, 495 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc).\\n However, Chandler and Cooks are distinguishable in that\\nneither the Third nor the Fifth Circuits adopted categorical\\napproaches stating that defendants can cross‐examine coop‐\\nerating witnesses on the precise nature of their prison terms.\\nIn both cases, the courts determined that the analysis depends\\non whether the jury has sufficient information “to appraise\\nthe bias and motives of the witness.” Cooks, 52 F.3d at 104;\\nUnited States v. Mussare, 405 F.3d 161, 170 (3d Cir. 2005) (“In\\nChandler, we left unresolved the question of whether the Con‐\\nfrontation Clause entitles a defendant categorically to inquire\\ninto the concrete terms of a cooperating witness’s agreement\\nwith the government, including the sentence that witness\\nmay have avoided through his cooperation.”) (quotation\\nomitted).\\n\\f16 Nos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044\\n\\n And the Ninth Circuit’s Larson opinion hinges on the fact\\nthat the cooperating witness in that case faced a particularly\\nsevere sentence: life imprisonment. Larson, 495 F.3d at 1107\\n(“[A]ny reduction from a mandatory life sentence is of such a\\nsignificant magnitude that excluding this information de‐\\nnie[s] the jury important information necessary to evaluate\\n[the witness’s] credibility.”). We do not find the Ninth Cir‐\\ncuit’s analysis so persuasive as to abandon Trent. The Eighth\\nCircuit explicitly rejected Larson’s approach. See United States\\nv. Wright, 866 F.3d 899, 907 (8th Cir. 2017). And at any rate,\\nnone of the government’s witnesses in this case faced a sen‐\\ntence of life imprisonment.\\n Here, the district court directly followed our guidance in\\nTrent. The record shows that the defense cross‐examined the\\ngovernment’s witnesses on the fact that they benefitted from\\ncooperating with the government. Specifically, defense coun‐\\nsel elicited from witnesses that, without cooperating, they\\nwould have, “never seen the light of day” and would have\\n“died in prison.” The defense’s cross‐examination exposed\\nenough information for the jury to deduce that the witnesses\\nreceived a serious benefit from cooperating with the govern‐\\nment. See Trent, 863 F.3d at 706 (“Because the court allowed\\nTrent to engage in this thorough cross‐examination, which\\nreadily exposed any of [the witnesses’] biases and incentives\\nto testify adversely to Trent, the court did not offend the core\\nvalues of the Confrontation Clause.”). As in Trent, the district\\ncourt’s limitation did not significantly impact Hunter and Ev‐\\nans’ ability to cross‐examine adverse witnesses.\\n C. Hunter’s Pro Se Arguments Do Not Prevail\\n Despite Hunter’s representation by counsel, we also au‐\\nthorized him to present several arguments in an additional,\\n\\fNos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044 17\\n\\npro se brief. “Although there is no Sixth Amendment right to\\nfile a pro se brief when the appellant is represented by counsel,\\nnothing precludes an appellate court from accepting the pro\\nse brief and considering the arguments contained therein for\\nwhatever they may be worth.” Hayes v. Hawes, 921 F.2d 100,\\n102 (7th Cir. 1990) (per curiam). Although sometimes author‐\\nized (as here), the filing of pro se briefs by a defendant who is\\nrepresented by counsel is generally unhelpful. We consider\\nHunter’s remaining, pro se arguments in turn.\\n 1. The District Court Made Proper Evidentiary Rulings\\n Hunter, pro se, raises challenges to several evidentiary rul‐\\nings made by the district court. “We review the admission of\\nevidence for an abuse of discretion and ‘will reverse an evi‐\\ndentiary ruling only when the record contains no evidence on\\nwhich the district court rationally could have based its rul‐\\ning.’” United States v. Quiroz, 874 F.3d 562, 569 (7th Cir. 2017)\\n(quoting United States v. Gorman, 613 F.3d 711, 717 (7th Cir.\\n2010)).\\n First, Hunter believes that the district court should have\\nexcluded Brown’s testimony because she was a “biased” wit‐\\nness. Earlier we mentioned that Brown’s son and fiancé were\\ndefendants in the case who pled guilty and agreed to testify\\nagainst Hunter and Evans. To support this argument, Hunter\\ncites United States v. Abel, 469 U.S. 45, 53 (1984). However, Abel\\nestablished that evidence of membership in a prison gang\\ncould be introduced to impeach a witness because it was pro‐\\nbative of witness bias, not that biased witness testimony could\\nnever be admitted. Id. Indeed, the Court in Abel specifically\\nvalidated exposing witness bias as an acceptable means of im‐\\npeachment under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Id. at 51. And\\nHunter’s counsel exposed Brown’s relationship to two of the\\n\\f18 Nos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044\\n\\ngovernment’s cooperating witnesses and her potential bias on\\ncross‐examination. We therefore find no error in allowing\\nBrown’s testimony.\\n Second, Hunter challenges another portion of Brown’s\\ntrial testimony on hearsay grounds. At trial, Brown testified\\nto overhearing Hunter discuss details of the Walgreen’s rob‐\\nbery in her kitchen. Over defense counsel’s objection, the dis‐\\ntrict court agreed with the government that that the testimony\\nfell into the hearsay exception for a statement by a party op‐\\nponent. Fed. R. Evid. 801. We agree. The Rule provides that\\nstatements made by a party in an individual capacity that are\\nlater offered against him are not hearsay. Fed. R. Evid.\\n801(d)(2)(A). Hunter attempts to rely on United States v. El‐\\nMezain for the proposition that “a witness’s testimony must\\nbe based on personal knowledge.” 664 F.3d 467, 495 (5th Cir.\\n2011). He claims that because Brown testified that she learned\\nof the Walgreens robbery from the news, she did not base her\\ntestimony about his involvement in the robbery on personal\\nknowledge. Hunter’s argument misses the point. Brown’s tes‐\\ntimony centered on her personal knowledge of what she\\nheard Hunter say, and those things are admissible as non‐\\nhearsay statements by a party opponent. Jordan v. Binns, 712\\nF.3d 1123, 1128–29 (7th Cir. 2013) (“There are only two re‐\\nquirements for admissibility under FRE 801(d)(2)(A): a state‐\\nment was made by a party, and the statement was offered\\nagainst that party.”).\\n Hunter similarly objects to testimony given by Kelly Scott,\\none of the co‐defendants who cooperated with the govern‐\\nment. Like Brown, Hunter believes Scott was a biased witness,\\nbut this complaint fails for the same reason. Hunter and Evans\\nmade Scott’s cooperation with the government an issue at\\n\\fNos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044 19\\n\\ntrial, suggesting that Scott’s reward for cooperating—a re‐\\nduced sentence—motivated him to fabricate his testimony\\nagainst them. Attempting to rehabilitate Scott, the govern‐\\nment asked him whether he had anything to fear by cooper‐\\nating and testifying. Scott mentioned that someone had hit\\nhim over the head in jail. The district court overruled the de‐\\nfense’s objection for relevance. Scott also testified that he over‐\\nheard Hunter and Evans discussing the case and making\\nthreats against him in a holding area during the trial.\\n Hunter claims that the district court should have excluded\\nthis testimony as irrelevant and characterizes it as highly prej‐\\nudicial to the jury. We previously have held that evidence of\\nthreats by a defendant against a prosecution witness on direct\\nexamination is inadmissible unless it is linked to a specific\\ncredibility issue at trial—like a witness’s behavior on the\\nstand or testimony that is inconsistent with prior statements.\\nSee United States v. Thomas, 86 F.3d 647, 654 (7th Cir. 1996);\\nUnited States v. Thompson, 359 F.3d 470, 477 (7th Cir. 2004). In‐\\ndeed, Thomas and Thompson each rejected efforts to use threats\\nagainst a witness to generally “bolster” or “boost” a witness’s\\ncredibility. However, we have also held that “[o]nce a wit‐\\nness’s credibility has been attacked…the non‐attacking party\\nis permitted to admit evidence to ‘rehabilitate’ the witness.”\\nUnited States v. Lindemann, 85 F.3d 1232, 1242 (7th Cir. 1996).\\nWe have explained that the government may introduce testi‐\\nmony about a witness’s motives on direct examination when\\nsuch testimony is rehabilitative and likely to give the jury a\\nfull picture. United States v. McKinney, 954 F.2d 471, 479 (7th\\nCir. 1992).\\n Hunter’s defense counsel aggressively challenged the in‐\\ntegrity of the government’s witnesses from the trial’s start and\\n\\f20 Nos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044\\n\\nvigorously cross‐examined them about their motivations to\\nlie. With respect to Scott, defense counsel thoroughly walked\\nthrough Scott’s inconsistent statements, criminal history, and\\nhis belief that lying to the police is occasionally permissible.\\nThe threats occurred in the midst of and in response to Scott’s\\ndecision to testify for the government, so they were relevant\\nto his testimony and credibility. In this context, we cannot\\nagree that the district court abused its discretion by allowing\\nScott to testify to the adverse consequences of his cooperation.\\nSee id. (“Whether the potential for unfair prejudice of a given\\npiece of evidence outweighs its probative value is a decision\\nleft to the district court’s discretion.”).\\n Accordingly, we find no errors in the district court’s evi‐\\ndentiary rulings.\\n Hunter also claims that Dominique Rollins gave “false tes‐\\ntimony” on the government’s behalf. A defendant who\\n“seek[s] a new trial based on perjured testimony has the bur‐\\nden to show that (1) the prosecution’s case included perjured\\ntestimony; (2) the prosecution knew, or should have known,\\nof the perjury; and (3) there is a likelihood that the false testi‐\\nmony affected the judgment of the jury.” United States v.\\nCosby, 924 F.3d 329, 336 (7th Cir. 2019) (citation and internal\\nquotation omitted). Hunter points to confusion and seeming\\ncontradictions in Rollins’ testimony to support this claim. But\\neven if Rollins gave confused testimony, Hunter fails to point\\nto convincing evidence of perjury, much less perjury that the\\ngovernment knowingly proffered. We therefore conclude that\\nthis claim also fails.\\n 2. The Lack of a Curative Instruction for Investigator\\n Strasser’s Limited Testimony Was No Error\\n\\fNos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044 21\\n\\n Hunter believes that the district court should have admin‐\\nistered a curative instruction to the jury advising it to disre‐\\ngard a portion of Strasser’s trial testimony. The defense ob‐\\njected to Strasser’s testimony on the grounds that the govern‐\\nment never designated him as an expert or summary witness.\\nThe district court sustained the defense’s objections and de‐\\ntermined that Strasser could only testify to evidence in the\\ncase that he personally worked on or developed. However,\\nbefore the objection, Strasser testified that he had viewed hun‐\\ndreds of examples of robbery footage and that generally crim‐\\ninals use the same tactics in each robbery. In his pro se brief,\\nHunter claims that the district court should have issued a cu‐\\nrative instruction to advise the jury to disregard Strasser’s\\nbrief, pre‐objection testimony. The defense did not request a\\ncurative instruction at the time. Reviewing this on a plain er‐\\nror standard, Hunter’s argument fails. United States v. Chris‐\\ntian, 673 F.3d 702, 708 (7th Cir. 2012) (plain error requires that\\nabsent the error, the defendant probably would not have been\\nconvicted). Strasser’s brief comments before the objection\\nprovided little information and could not have significantly\\nprejudiced Hunter.\\n 3. The Government Presented Sufficient Evidence to Support\\n Hunter’s Convictions\\n Hunter argues that the government failed to offer evi‐\\ndence to prove every element of his conviction under the\\nHobbs Act, which criminalizes robbery or extortion that af‐\\nfects commerce. See 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a). Hunter specifically\\nclaims that the government failed to prove that the robberies\\naffected interstate commerce. However, the government only\\nneeds to show a de minimis effect on interstate commerce.\\nUnited States v. Bailey, 227 F.3d 792, 797 (7th Cir. 2000). Here,\\n\\f22 Nos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044\\n\\nthe parties stipulated that the Roman’s Food Market and the\\nGeorge Webb restaurant were businesses engaged in inter‐\\nstate commerce. Hunter was involved in robbing both stores,\\nwhich temporarily shut down after the robberies. Therefore,\\nthe government provided sufficient evidence to satisfy the\\n“affects commerce” element of the Act.\\n Hunter lastly argues that the government produced insuf‐\\nficient evidence to satisfy the mens rea element for the car jack‐\\nings. Under 18 U.S.C. § 2119, a defendant must “inten[d] to\\ncause death or serious bodily harm.” Given the defendants’\\naffinity for pistol‐whipping their victims, we find it hard to\\nsee the basis for this argument. We previously explained that\\nthe defendant need not actually attempt to kill or harm the\\nvictim, but rather must possess a “conditional intent to do the\\ndriver harm had he not complied with the defendants’ de‐\\nmands.” United States v Jones, 188 F.3d 773, 777 (7th Cir. 1999).\\nThe Cadillac’s driver testified that the two men who carjacked\\nhim forced him to the ground and struck him in the back of\\nthe head with a gun. With respect to the Ford Focus, the vic‐\\ntim testified that Hunter pressed a firearm into his stomach\\nand took his possessions, including his car. The government\\nprovided evidence that both instances involved threats\\nbacked by a deadly weapon. One instance involved serious\\nphysical harm. The government provided sufficient evidence\\nto establish the mens rea.\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district\\ncourt is AFFIRMED.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4422994/\", \"author_raw\": \"Michael Stephen Kanne\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"FLAUM"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"KANNE"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"SCUDDER"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"FLAUM\": \", Circuit\", \"KANNE\": \", Circuit\", \"SCUDDER\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645741/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":8,"string":"8"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: United States v. Otis Hunter\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-08-05\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n Plaintiff‐Appellee,\n v.\n\nOTIS HUNTER and\nDESHAWN EVANS,\n Defendants‐Appellants.\n ____________________\n\n Appeals from the United States District Court for the\n Eastern District of Wisconsin.\n Nos. 17‐CR‐29‐2 and 17‐CR‐29‐4 — J.P. Stadtmueller, Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED APRIL 5, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 5, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before FLAUM, KANNE, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.\n KANNE, Circuit Judge. Police arrested five men involved in\na string of Milwaukee armed robberies in late 2016. Three of\nthe defendants cooperated with the government and pled\nguilty. The two remaining defendants, Otis Hunter and\nDeshawn Evans, proceeded to trial where a jury convicted\nthem. Through counsel, the pair challenges the district court’s\nhandling of jury selection and denial of their Batson challenge.\n\f2 Nos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044\n\nThey also challenge our circuit precedent and argue that the\ndistrict court violated the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation\nClause when it prevented them from cross‐examining gov‐\nernment witnesses about the specific prison terms they\navoided through their cooperation. After obtaining authori‐\nzation from the court, Hunter made additional, pro se argu‐\nments challenging how the trial court handled witness testi‐\nmony and whether the government provided sufficient evi‐\ndence to support his conviction. All challenges are rejected\nand we affirm.\n I. BACKGROUND\n Authorities arrested five men in connection with a series\nof crimes in late 2016: Dominique Rollins, Otis Hunter, Kelly\nScott, Deshawn Evans, and Anthony Lindsey. Rollins, Scott,\nand Lindsey pled guilty and testified for the government, but\nHunter and Evans proceeded to trial.\n The government connected the defendants to the follow‐\ning crimes. First, on November 17, 2016, Hunter, Rollins, and\nScott committed an armed robbery of a Roman’s Food Market.\nThey held up an employee, made him open the cash register,\nstruck him on the head with a pistol, and then took the money\nand a large quantity of Newport cigarettes. Surveillance foot‐\nage captured the robbery. Rollins and Scott testified at trial\nthat they robbed the store with Hunter. They also narrated the\nsurveillance footage and identified Hunter and his pistol. At\nthe time of the robberies, Doris Brown—Lindsey’s mother\nand Scott’s fiancée—lived at a house on 15th Place where the\ndefendants regularly congregated. She later testified that she\nsaw Hunter with many packs of Newport cigarettes. She also\nviewed the surveillance footage and identified the robbers.\n\fNos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044 3\n\n Three days later, on November 20, two men committed an\narmed carjacking of a food delivery driver outside of Aurora\nSinai Hospital. The robbers struck the driver on the head with\na pistol, took his phone, car keys, and wallet, and fled in his\nblack Cadillac CTS. Surveillance footage captured the rob‐\nbery. Scott and Lindsey viewed the footage at trial and iden‐\ntified the pair as Hunter and Evans.\n Then on November 22, three men with stocking‐covered\nfaces robbed a George Webb restaurant. Two of the robbers\nbrandished pistols. They took $70 in cash and some receipts\nfrom the register and held up employees. The three fled the\nscene in a black Cadillac. As before, surveillance footage cap‐\ntured the robbery. Scott and Lindsey confessed to robbing the\nrestaurant with Hunter and identified Hunter and Scott at\ntrial as the pair who brandished firearms.\n A day after the George Webb robbery, on November 23,\npolice found the black Cadillac CTS parked near the home on\n15th Place where the defendants met. Inside the car, they\nfound receipts from the George Webb restaurant and a nylon\nstocking. DNA recovered from the stocking linked it to de‐\nfendant Anthony Lindsey.\n On November 25, two men attempted to rob a Walgreens\npharmacy at gunpoint. One of the two men brandished a pis‐\ntol and pointed it at the cashier. When the cashier failed to\nopen the register, the robber struck him on the head with the\npistol, knocking him to the ground. The robbers also failed to\nopen the register. They instead attempted to rob the custom‐\ners as a consolation but recovered no valuables. Surveillance\nfootage captured the attempted robbery. Lindsey, Scott, and\nDoris Brown viewed the footage at trial and identified the rob‐\n\f4 Nos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044\n\nbers as defendants Hunter and Evans, with Evans brandish‐\ning the firearm and striking the cashier. Brown also testified\nthat she overheard Hunter discussing the Walgreen’s robbery\nat her house.\n On December 4, two men carjacked the owner of a Ford\nFocus. They cornered the victim against the side of the car,\none pressed a firearm into the victim’s stomach, and they\nrobbed him, taking his credit cards, phone, and wallet before\nmaking their escape in his vehicle. About 30 minutes after the\ncarjacking, the robbers used the victim’s credit cards at a Foot\nLocker store. The Foot Locker’s surveillance footage from the\ntime of the purchase showed Hunter there, accompanied by a\nminor. The victim identified the pair as the carjackers through\nphotographs and later identified Hunter in court as the car‐\njacker who pressed the pistol into his stomach. Brown, Scott,\nLindsey, and Rollins each viewed the surveillance footage\nand identified Hunter.\n On December 5, the stolen Ford Focus turned up parked\nbehind the house on 15th Place. Police arrested Evans, the mi‐\nnor, and Anthony Lindsey in the car. Hunter—on‐the‐run—\nwas arrested five days later in Ohio. Hunter’s vehicle con‐\ntained new Foot Locker merchandise and multiple Foot\nLocker receipts dated December 4, which reflected purchases\nmade with the credit cards taken during the Ford Focus car‐\njacking.\n The grand jury returned an 11‐count indictment against\nthe five men. Relevant to this appeal, Hunter was charged\nwith conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371), robbery of the Roman’s\nFood Market under the Hobbs Act (18 U.S.C. § 1951), carjack‐\ning the Cadillac (18 U.S.C. § 2119), robbery of the George\nWebb restaurant under the Hobbs Act, attempted robbery of\n\fNos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044 5\n\nthe Walgreens under the Hobbs Act, and carjacking the Ford\nFocus. Hunter was also charged with brandishing a firearm\nduring each of these crimes in violation of 18 U.S.C.\n§ 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). Evans faced charges for conspiracy, carjack‐\ning the Cadillac, and the attempted robbery at Walgreens. He\nwas also charged with brandishing a firearm during these\ncrimes.\n Hunter and Evans—who are both African Americans—\nproceeded to a jury trial. As a preface to jury selection, the\ncourt questioned all potential jurors about their experiences\ntestifying under oath in the judicial system and the courts.\nHowever, multiple jurors failed to disclose relevant infor‐\nmation related to this line of questioning. During jury selec‐\ntion, the government struck several jurors for cause and used\nits peremptory strikes. The entire jury pool included just three\npotential African American jurors. The initial voir dire in‐\ncluded only two. One of these two, Juror 12, was eventually\nempaneled.\n The government questioned the other potential African\nAmerican juror, Juror 7, about an allegedly racially‐charged\nFacebook post on her profile. The government also learned\nthat Juror 7’s family had significant contacts with the criminal\njustice system and she personally had other abject experiences\nwith the courts. Specifically, Juror 7’s son has been adjudi‐\ncated delinquent on multiple occasions, and her ex‐husband\nwas occasionally imprisoned following numerous convic‐\ntions. During one of her ex‐husband’s arrests, authorities\nseized her firearm, which she later petitioned a court to re‐\ncover. Juror 7 had also been through multiple eviction pro‐\nceedings, a bankruptcy, and received adverse judgments for\nfailing to pay utility bills. Altogether, during the first round\n\f6 Nos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044\n\nof voir dire questioning, Juror 7 never disclosed a number of\nher contacts with the courts and criminal justice system.\n The government moved to exclude Juror 7 for cause, but\nthe district court denied the motion. Before defense counsel\neven raised an objection, the district court specifically warned\nthe government that if it moved to strike Juror 7, the court\nwould conduct a Batson hearing. The government neverthe‐\nless used one of its peremptory strikes against Juror 7. Before\nthe district court swore in the selected panel, the defendants\nraised a Batson challenge.\n During the Batson hearing, the government explained that\nit struck Juror 7 due to her numerous abject engagements with\nlaw enforcement and the courts. In response, defense counsel\nlaid out examples that it argued demonstrated the govern‐\nment’s disparate treatment of similarly‐situated white jurors.\nIt pointed out that the government never attempted to strike\nthree other jurors who also had similar judicial encounters.\nMoreover, the defense pointed out that Juror 35, a white male,\nhad been recently charged with firearm‐related offenses but\nfound not guilty by reason of temporary insanity. Addition‐\nally, the defense suggested that the government’s questions\nabout Juror 7’s Facebook posts demonstrated the impermissi‐\nble, racial motivation for the strike. For its part, the govern‐\nment explained that it was not previously aware of Juror 35’s\nidentity or background and directed the court’s attention to a\nlist of potential jurors that the court gave to the parties a week\nearlier. That list did not include Juror 35. The court deter‐\nmined that it needed to investigate the matter. It ordered the\nparties to submit same‐day briefing on the Batson challenge\nand adjourned for the day.\n\fNos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044 7\n\n On the second day of trial, the district court determined\nthat the clerk’s office failed to include information about Juror\n35 and several others in the materials it distributed to the par‐\nties.1 The court allowed the parties to conduct supplemental\nvoir dire for a few jurors, beginning with Juror 5, whom de‐\nfense counsel identified during its Batson challenge as an ex‐\nample of the government’s disparate treatment. On further\nquestioning, despite initially claiming to have never been in‐\nvolved with the courts, Juror 5 admitted that he experienced\na foreclosure and a bankruptcy years earlier but claimed he\ndid not understand the court’s earlier questions about previ‐\nous court experience.\n The parties then questioned Juror 35, a white man. The ad‐\nditional questions revealed that Juror 35 suffered from PTSD\nand was found not guilty by reason of a temporary mental\ndeficiency to three counts related to an incident involving his\ndischarging a firearm. Juror 35 also disclosed a divorce and a\nbankruptcy. The government then moved to strike Juror 35\nfor cause.\n Next, the court allowed the government to conduct sup‐\nplemental voir dire questioning of Juror 36, a white woman.\nThe government’s questioning revealed that Juror 36’s\nbrother had been convicted of a sexual assault of a minor\nmore than 30 years earlier. She too had been through a divorce\nand a bankruptcy years earlier.\n After the parties finished supplemental voir dire of Juror\n36, the bailiff informed the court that Juror 35 was in the re‐\nstroom, vomiting. The government renewed its motion to\n\n\n 1 The record does not clearly identify the other affected jurors.\n\f8 Nos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044\n\nstrike Juror 35 for cause, which the court granted over\nHunter’s counsel’s objection.\n To remedy the confusion regarding missing juror infor‐\nmation, the district court then started jury selection over from\nthe same venire. The district court asked all potential jurors,\nagain, about their involvement with the court systems, giving\nexplicit examples of different types of relevant proceedings\nwhere they might have been sworn and given testimony.\nMultiple jurors then acknowledged that they should have re‐\nsponded affirmatively to a similar question the day before.\nThe parties selected a new panel and the government re‐\nnewed its peremptory strike against Juror 7. However, this\ntime it also used a peremptory strike on Juror 36.\n The defense again objected under Batson, arguing that the\ngovernment treated Juror 7 differently based on her race. The\ngovernment explained that it struck all jurors who had nega‐\ntive experiences with the criminal justice system. The defense\nreplied that the government used its strikes as a pretext for\nexcluding Juror 7. The defense also complained that the\ncourt’s process of going back and re‐examining the other po‐\ntential jurors enabled the government to make a post‐hoc jus‐\ntification of its impermissible, race‐based strike.\n The district court concluded the defendants failed to es‐\ntablish that the government struck Juror 7 on account of her\nrace. The court noted that, altogether, the government exe‐\ncuted peremptory strikes on six jurors: five white jurors and\nJuror 7. Similarly, the court recognized that the government\narticulated a legitimate, race‐neutral reason for striking Juror\n7, and that the government struck other similarly‐situated\nwhite jurors. The district court then swore in the jury, which\nincluded one African American juror, Juror 12.\n\fNos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044 9\n\n As previously mentioned, three of the original defendants\npled guilty and testified for the government. During their tes‐\ntimony, defense counsel sought to impeach these witnesses\non the basis that they each benefitted from reduced sentences\nby virtue of their cooperation with the government. However,\nat the government’s objection, the district court limited this\ncross‐examination. Because each of the witnesses originally\nfaced similar charges to Hunter and Evans, the government\nworried jurors might deduce the potential imprisonment\nterms that Hunter and Evans faced. The district court permit‐\nted cross‐examination about the sentence reduction, but ex‐\ncluded questioning about the specific terms of their possible\nsentences.\n The government also called Steven Strasser, an investiga‐\ntor at the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office, to tes‐\ntify at trial. The government never identified Strasser as either\nan expert or a summary witness ahead of trial, but Strasser\nbegan his testimony drawing on his professional experiences\nand his general observations from reviewing hundreds of rob‐\nberies. After Strasser began to draw comparisons between the\nsurveillance videos from the different robberies to show con‐\nsistent patterns, the defense objected. The court found that the\ngovernment should have designated Strasser as a summary\nwitness and, because it failed to do so, Strasser’s testimony\nshould be limited. The court also determined that the testi‐\nmony was cumulative because the evidence the government\nexpected him to testify to spoke for itself. The district court\nlimited Strasser’s testimony to issues of his own involvement\nin the case. Neither party asked for a curative instruction to\nthe jury for the testimony that Strasser gave before the de‐\nfendants’ objection. The district court provided no curative or\nlimiting instruction.\n\f10 Nos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044\n\n The jury convicted Hunter and Evans. The district court\nsentenced them to their mandatory minimum sentences plus\none day: 107 years for Hunter and 32 years for Evans.\n II. ANALYSIS\n On appeal, Hunter and Evans share two main arguments.\nFirst, the pair argues that the district court erred by rejecting\ntheir Batson challenge. Second, they argue that the district\ncourt improperly limited cross‐examination of the govern‐\nment’s cooperating witnesses about reductions in their poten‐\ntial sentences.\n Despite receiving appointed counsel, Hunter also sought\nand received permission from the court to raise additional ar‐\nguments, pro se. He objects, pro se, along three lines. First, he\nmaintains that the district court should have excluded some\nwitness testimony as hearsay or unduly prejudicial. Second,\nHunter claims that the district court erred by failing to pro‐\nvide a curative instruction advising the jury to ignore a por‐\ntion of Strasser’s testimony. Lastly, Hunter believes that the\ngovernment proffered insufficient evidence to prove the inter‐\nstate‐commerce elements on two of the business robberies\nand the mens rea elements of carjacking.\n A. The District Court Committed No Error By Rejecting the\n Batson Challenge\n Hunter and Evans argue that the district court failed to\nconduct an adequate Batson inquiry and also improperly ac‐\ncepted the government’s “implausible” race‐neutral rationale\nfor striking Juror 7. We review the district court’s finding on\na Batson challenge for clear error. United States v. Carter, 111\nF.3d 509, 512 (7th Cir. 1997). “[T]o reverse we must have a firm\nand definite conviction that a mistake was made.” United\n\fNos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044 11\n\nStates v. Taylor, 636 F.3d 901, 905 (7th Cir. 2011) (quotation\nomitted). The Supreme Court has described our standard of\nreview as “highly deferential.” See Flowers v. Mississippi, 139\nS. Ct. 2228, 2244 (2019).\n In Batson, the Supreme Court determined that “the Equal\nProtection Clause forbids the prosecutor to challenge poten‐\ntial jurors solely on account of their race or on the assumption\nthat black jurors as a group will be unable impartially to con‐\nsider the State’s case against a black defendant.” Batson v. Ken‐\ntucky, 476 U.S. 79, 89 (1986).\n There are three steps to a Batson challenge. First, the de‐\nfendant makes a prima facie showing that the prosecution’s\nperemptory strikes were discriminatory. Id. at 93‐94. Second,\nthe government must tender a nonracial reason for the use of\nits peremptory strike. Id. Lastly, the district court must decide\nwhether the defendant established purposeful discrimina‐\ntion. Id. Where the prosecution has “offered a race‐neutral ex‐\nplanation for the peremptory challenge, the test is com‐\npressed down to the ultimate question of intentional discrim‐\nination; the preliminary question of a prima facie case becomes\nmoot.” Carter, 111 F.3d at 512 n.1 (citing Hernandez v. New\nYork, 500 U.S. 352, 359 (1991)).\n Fundamentally, Hunter and Evans seem to believe that be‐\ncause the court restarted jury selection from the same panel,\nthe government had time to come up with an ostensibly legit‐\nimate excuse for striking Juror 7. They charge that the govern‐\nment clearly demonstrated its impermissible racial motiva‐\ntion by failing to investigate and strike similarly‐situated ju‐\nrors. Consequently, they believe they met their Batson burden\nwith the first panel, but the government was able to hide its\ndiscriminatory purpose by striking other potential jurors on\n\f12 Nos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044\n\nsimilar grounds in the second, “redo” panel. The “redo”\npanel, therefore, deprived them of a valid Batson challenge\nand prejudiced them.\n Viewing the whole record, we believe the district court ul‐\ntimately committed no clear error. But two arguments which\nHunter and Evans make merit further discussion. First, the\ngovernment did not ask all other potential jurors the same\nnumber of probing questions about relationships with the\ncourts or the criminal justice system. However, it appears that\nmany of those other jurors (like Juror 7) either failed to dis‐\nclose all the details they should have or did not understand\nthis line of questioning. The district court attempted to correct\nthe jury issues on the “redo” panel by clarifying the question\nfor the potential jurors. When the government learned of oth‐\ners’ contacts with the courts, it struck those jurors, too.\n Second, the government initially did not strike Juror 35,\ndespite his recent and serious criminal charges. But the clerk’s\noffice failed to distribute an updated potential juror list to the\nparties, so the government had no opportunity to investigate\nand strike Juror 35, as it did other jurors. This error demon‐\nstrates that the government’s different treatment of Juror 35\nwas motivated by ignorance, not race. The district court cor‐\nrected the error when it afforded the parties an opportunity\nto conduct additional questioning.\n The record reflects the district court’s Batson concerns. The\ncourt advised the government that the parties would conduct\na full Batson hearing if the government used a peremptory\nstrike against Juror 7. The court also provided a long explana‐\ntion to the parties as to why it denied the defendants’ Batson\nchallenge. The defendants urged that the court’s “redo” al‐\n\fNos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044 13\n\nlowed the government to cure its pretextual excuse for strik‐\ning Juror 7 by also striking similarly‐situated white jurors.\nThey argue that this effectively allowed the government to ex‐\npand its facially race‐neutral rationale, conflicting with Taylor.\nThat case involved multiple remands from our court to the\ndistrict court for further exploration of the government’s prof‐\nfered reason for striking an African American juror. However,\nwhen the district court conducted another Batson hearing to\nsupplement the record on remand, “the government took the\nopportunity to expand on its rationale for striking [the juror],\nadvancing seven new reasons[.]” Taylor, 636 F.3d at 904. We\nheld that “[a]ccepting new, unrelated reasons extending well\nbeyond the prosecutor’s original justification for striking [a\njuror] amounts to clear error.” Id. at 906.\n Here, the district court never swore the jury, but instead\nstarted selection over after new information came to light. The\ngovernment’s justification for striking Juror 7 remained con‐\nsistent throughout the whole process. In the wake of a clerical\nerror, the court’s voir dire process sought to reveal all neces‐\nsary juror information to benefit the parties. To ensure a fair\ntrial, the district court had the parties start over in selecting\nand striking jurors. The district court’s restart process allowed\nthe government to apply its rationale more evenly and fairly,\nbut not to expand it. Even if we agree that the district court\ncould have conducted a more perfect jury selection by starting\nover with a new panel, we do not believe the district court’s\n“redo” in this case constituted clear error. The Supreme Court\nexpressly declined to mandate a procedural approach for\nhandling jury selection after a party raises a Batson challenge.\nBatson, 476 U.S. at 99 (“We decline, however, to formulate par‐\nticular procedures to be followed upon a defendant’s timely\nobjection to a prosecutor’s challenges.”). See also id. at n.24\n\f14 Nos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044\n\n(noting the variety of jury selection processes employed in\nAmerican courts). The district court provided a fair procedure\nfor jury selection in this case. United States v. Mannie, 509 F.3d\n851, 857 (7th Cir. 2007) (“It is axiomatic in our system of justice\nthat an individual is entitled to a fair trial—not a perfect\none.”).\n B. The District Court Properly Limited Defense Counsel’s\n Cross‐Examination of Government Witnesses\n Hunter and Evans argue that the district court erred by\npreventing them from cross‐examining the government’s wit‐\nnesses about the specific mandatory minimum sentences they\navoided by cooperating with the government. They believe\nthe district court’s limitation violated the Sixth Amendment’s\nConfrontation Clause.\n “Our standard of review when a district court limits the\ndefendant’s cross‐examination depends on whether the\ncourt’s limit directly implicates the core values of the Con‐\nfrontation Clause. If so, we review the limit de novo. If not, we\nreview the limit only for abuse of discretion.” United States v.\nTrent, 863 F.3d 699, 704 (7th Cir. 2017) (internal quotations\nomitted).\n To advance their argument, Hunter and Evans directly\nchallenge and invite us to overturn our opinion in United\nStates v. Trent. We decline their invitation. In Trent, we held\nthat limiting cross‐examination of government witnesses\nabout specific sentences and the sentencing guideline ranges\nthey faced before and after their cooperation with the govern‐\nment did not violate a defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights.\n863 F.3d at 706. We explained that to satisfy the Confrontation\nClause, it is enough that a defendant can elicit that witnesses\n\fNos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044 15\n\nwill receive a “substantial” reduction in imprisonment. Id.\nThis limitation is sometimes necessary when criminal defend‐\nants and government witnesses face the same criminal\ncharges. We explained that if the jury learned about the pre‐\ncise sentence terms that government witnesses faced, then it\ncould deduce or infer the sentences facing the similarly‐\ncharged defendants. Id. Consequently, the reality of a serious\nsentence could prejudice the jury and cause it to acquit the\ndefendants of crimes they actually committed. Id.\n Hunter and Evans claim that Trent overstates the risk of\nprejudice from cross‐examination about the mandatory mini‐\nmum sentences. They argue Trent violates the Confrontation\nClause and suggest that other circuits disagree with our anal‐\nysis. To support this claim, Hunter and Evans cite cases from\nthree other circuits. See United States v. Chandler, 326 F.3d 210\n(3d Cir. 2003); United States v. Cooks, 52 F.3d 101 (5th Cir. 1995);\nUnited States v. Larson, 495 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc).\n However, Chandler and Cooks are distinguishable in that\nneither the Third nor the Fifth Circuits adopted categorical\napproaches stating that defendants can cross‐examine coop‐\nerating witnesses on the precise nature of their prison terms.\nIn both cases, the courts determined that the analysis depends\non whether the jury has sufficient information “to appraise\nthe bias and motives of the witness.” Cooks, 52 F.3d at 104;\nUnited States v. Mussare, 405 F.3d 161, 170 (3d Cir. 2005) (“In\nChandler, we left unresolved the question of whether the Con‐\nfrontation Clause entitles a defendant categorically to inquire\ninto the concrete terms of a cooperating witness’s agreement\nwith the government, including the sentence that witness\nmay have avoided through his cooperation.”) (quotation\nomitted).\n\f16 Nos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044\n\n And the Ninth Circuit’s Larson opinion hinges on the fact\nthat the cooperating witness in that case faced a particularly\nsevere sentence: life imprisonment. Larson, 495 F.3d at 1107\n(“[A]ny reduction from a mandatory life sentence is of such a\nsignificant magnitude that excluding this information de‐\nnie[s] the jury important information necessary to evaluate\n[the witness’s] credibility.”). We do not find the Ninth Cir‐\ncuit’s analysis so persuasive as to abandon Trent. The Eighth\nCircuit explicitly rejected Larson’s approach. See United States\nv. Wright, 866 F.3d 899, 907 (8th Cir. 2017). And at any rate,\nnone of the government’s witnesses in this case faced a sen‐\ntence of life imprisonment.\n Here, the district court directly followed our guidance in\nTrent. The record shows that the defense cross‐examined the\ngovernment’s witnesses on the fact that they benefitted from\ncooperating with the government. Specifically, defense coun‐\nsel elicited from witnesses that, without cooperating, they\nwould have, “never seen the light of day” and would have\n“died in prison.” The defense’s cross‐examination exposed\nenough information for the jury to deduce that the witnesses\nreceived a serious benefit from cooperating with the govern‐\nment. See Trent, 863 F.3d at 706 (“Because the court allowed\nTrent to engage in this thorough cross‐examination, which\nreadily exposed any of [the witnesses’] biases and incentives\nto testify adversely to Trent, the court did not offend the core\nvalues of the Confrontation Clause.”). As in Trent, the district\ncourt’s limitation did not significantly impact Hunter and Ev‐\nans’ ability to cross‐examine adverse witnesses.\n C. Hunter’s Pro Se Arguments Do Not Prevail\n Despite Hunter’s representation by counsel, we also au‐\nthorized him to present several arguments in an additional,\n\fNos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044 17\n\npro se brief. “Although there is no Sixth Amendment right to\nfile a pro se brief when the appellant is represented by counsel,\nnothing precludes an appellate court from accepting the pro\nse brief and considering the arguments contained therein for\nwhatever they may be worth.” Hayes v. Hawes, 921 F.2d 100,\n102 (7th Cir. 1990) (per curiam). Although sometimes author‐\nized (as here), the filing of pro se briefs by a defendant who is\nrepresented by counsel is generally unhelpful. We consider\nHunter’s remaining, pro se arguments in turn.\n 1. The District Court Made Proper Evidentiary Rulings\n Hunter, pro se, raises challenges to several evidentiary rul‐\nings made by the district court. “We review the admission of\nevidence for an abuse of discretion and ‘will reverse an evi‐\ndentiary ruling only when the record contains no evidence on\nwhich the district court rationally could have based its rul‐\ning.’” United States v. Quiroz, 874 F.3d 562, 569 (7th Cir. 2017)\n(quoting United States v. Gorman, 613 F.3d 711, 717 (7th Cir.\n2010)).\n First, Hunter believes that the district court should have\nexcluded Brown’s testimony because she was a “biased” wit‐\nness. Earlier we mentioned that Brown’s son and fiancé were\ndefendants in the case who pled guilty and agreed to testify\nagainst Hunter and Evans. To support this argument, Hunter\ncites United States v. Abel, 469 U.S. 45, 53 (1984). However, Abel\nestablished that evidence of membership in a prison gang\ncould be introduced to impeach a witness because it was pro‐\nbative of witness bias, not that biased witness testimony could\nnever be admitted. Id. Indeed, the Court in Abel specifically\nvalidated exposing witness bias as an acceptable means of im‐\npeachment under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Id. at 51. And\nHunter’s counsel exposed Brown’s relationship to two of the\n\f18 Nos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044\n\ngovernment’s cooperating witnesses and her potential bias on\ncross‐examination. We therefore find no error in allowing\nBrown’s testimony.\n Second, Hunter challenges another portion of Brown’s\ntrial testimony on hearsay grounds. At trial, Brown testified\nto overhearing Hunter discuss details of the Walgreen’s rob‐\nbery in her kitchen. Over defense counsel’s objection, the dis‐\ntrict court agreed with the government that that the testimony\nfell into the hearsay exception for a statement by a party op‐\nponent. Fed. R. Evid. 801. We agree. The Rule provides that\nstatements made by a party in an individual capacity that are\nlater offered against him are not hearsay. Fed. R. Evid.\n801(d)(2)(A). Hunter attempts to rely on United States v. El‐\nMezain for the proposition that “a witness’s testimony must\nbe based on personal knowledge.” 664 F.3d 467, 495 (5th Cir.\n2011). He claims that because Brown testified that she learned\nof the Walgreens robbery from the news, she did not base her\ntestimony about his involvement in the robbery on personal\nknowledge. Hunter’s argument misses the point. Brown’s tes‐\ntimony centered on her personal knowledge of what she\nheard Hunter say, and those things are admissible as non‐\nhearsay statements by a party opponent. Jordan v. Binns, 712\nF.3d 1123, 1128–29 (7th Cir. 2013) (“There are only two re‐\nquirements for admissibility under FRE 801(d)(2)(A): a state‐\nment was made by a party, and the statement was offered\nagainst that party.”).\n Hunter similarly objects to testimony given by Kelly Scott,\none of the co‐defendants who cooperated with the govern‐\nment. Like Brown, Hunter believes Scott was a biased witness,\nbut this complaint fails for the same reason. Hunter and Evans\nmade Scott’s cooperation with the government an issue at\n\fNos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044 19\n\ntrial, suggesting that Scott’s reward for cooperating—a re‐\nduced sentence—motivated him to fabricate his testimony\nagainst them. Attempting to rehabilitate Scott, the govern‐\nment asked him whether he had anything to fear by cooper‐\nating and testifying. Scott mentioned that someone had hit\nhim over the head in jail. The district court overruled the de‐\nfense’s objection for relevance. Scott also testified that he over‐\nheard Hunter and Evans discussing the case and making\nthreats against him in a holding area during the trial.\n Hunter claims that the district court should have excluded\nthis testimony as irrelevant and characterizes it as highly prej‐\nudicial to the jury. We previously have held that evidence of\nthreats by a defendant against a prosecution witness on direct\nexamination is inadmissible unless it is linked to a specific\ncredibility issue at trial—like a witness’s behavior on the\nstand or testimony that is inconsistent with prior statements.\nSee United States v. Thomas, 86 F.3d 647, 654 (7th Cir. 1996);\nUnited States v. Thompson, 359 F.3d 470, 477 (7th Cir. 2004). In‐\ndeed, Thomas and Thompson each rejected efforts to use threats\nagainst a witness to generally “bolster” or “boost” a witness’s\ncredibility. However, we have also held that “[o]nce a wit‐\nness’s credibility has been attacked…the non‐attacking party\nis permitted to admit evidence to ‘rehabilitate’ the witness.”\nUnited States v. Lindemann, 85 F.3d 1232, 1242 (7th Cir. 1996).\nWe have explained that the government may introduce testi‐\nmony about a witness’s motives on direct examination when\nsuch testimony is rehabilitative and likely to give the jury a\nfull picture. United States v. McKinney, 954 F.2d 471, 479 (7th\nCir. 1992).\n Hunter’s defense counsel aggressively challenged the in‐\ntegrity of the government’s witnesses from the trial’s start and\n\f20 Nos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044\n\nvigorously cross‐examined them about their motivations to\nlie. With respect to Scott, defense counsel thoroughly walked\nthrough Scott’s inconsistent statements, criminal history, and\nhis belief that lying to the police is occasionally permissible.\nThe threats occurred in the midst of and in response to Scott’s\ndecision to testify for the government, so they were relevant\nto his testimony and credibility. In this context, we cannot\nagree that the district court abused its discretion by allowing\nScott to testify to the adverse consequences of his cooperation.\nSee id. (“Whether the potential for unfair prejudice of a given\npiece of evidence outweighs its probative value is a decision\nleft to the district court’s discretion.”).\n Accordingly, we find no errors in the district court’s evi‐\ndentiary rulings.\n Hunter also claims that Dominique Rollins gave “false tes‐\ntimony” on the government’s behalf. A defendant who\n“seek[s] a new trial based on perjured testimony has the bur‐\nden to show that (1) the prosecution’s case included perjured\ntestimony; (2) the prosecution knew, or should have known,\nof the perjury; and (3) there is a likelihood that the false testi‐\nmony affected the judgment of the jury.” United States v.\nCosby, 924 F.3d 329, 336 (7th Cir. 2019) (citation and internal\nquotation omitted). Hunter points to confusion and seeming\ncontradictions in Rollins’ testimony to support this claim. But\neven if Rollins gave confused testimony, Hunter fails to point\nto convincing evidence of perjury, much less perjury that the\ngovernment knowingly proffered. We therefore conclude that\nthis claim also fails.\n 2. The Lack of a Curative Instruction for Investigator\n Strasser’s Limited Testimony Was No Error\n\fNos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044 21\n\n Hunter believes that the district court should have admin‐\nistered a curative instruction to the jury advising it to disre‐\ngard a portion of Strasser’s trial testimony. The defense ob‐\njected to Strasser’s testimony on the grounds that the govern‐\nment never designated him as an expert or summary witness.\nThe district court sustained the defense’s objections and de‐\ntermined that Strasser could only testify to evidence in the\ncase that he personally worked on or developed. However,\nbefore the objection, Strasser testified that he had viewed hun‐\ndreds of examples of robbery footage and that generally crim‐\ninals use the same tactics in each robbery. In his pro se brief,\nHunter claims that the district court should have issued a cu‐\nrative instruction to advise the jury to disregard Strasser’s\nbrief, pre‐objection testimony. The defense did not request a\ncurative instruction at the time. Reviewing this on a plain er‐\nror standard, Hunter’s argument fails. United States v. Chris‐\ntian, 673 F.3d 702, 708 (7th Cir. 2012) (plain error requires that\nabsent the error, the defendant probably would not have been\nconvicted). Strasser’s brief comments before the objection\nprovided little information and could not have significantly\nprejudiced Hunter.\n 3. The Government Presented Sufficient Evidence to Support\n Hunter’s Convictions\n Hunter argues that the government failed to offer evi‐\ndence to prove every element of his conviction under the\nHobbs Act, which criminalizes robbery or extortion that af‐\nfects commerce. See 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a). Hunter specifically\nclaims that the government failed to prove that the robberies\naffected interstate commerce. However, the government only\nneeds to show a de minimis effect on interstate commerce.\nUnited States v. Bailey, 227 F.3d 792, 797 (7th Cir. 2000). Here,\n\f22 Nos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044\n\nthe parties stipulated that the Roman’s Food Market and the\nGeorge Webb restaurant were businesses engaged in inter‐\nstate commerce. Hunter was involved in robbing both stores,\nwhich temporarily shut down after the robberies. Therefore,\nthe government provided sufficient evidence to satisfy the\n“affects commerce” element of the Act.\n Hunter lastly argues that the government produced insuf‐\nficient evidence to satisfy the mens rea element for the car jack‐\nings. Under 18 U.S.C. § 2119, a defendant must “inten[d] to\ncause death or serious bodily harm.” Given the defendants’\naffinity for pistol‐whipping their victims, we find it hard to\nsee the basis for this argument. We previously explained that\nthe defendant need not actually attempt to kill or harm the\nvictim, but rather must possess a “conditional intent to do the\ndriver harm had he not complied with the defendants’ de‐\nmands.” United States v Jones, 188 F.3d 773, 777 (7th Cir. 1999).\nThe Cadillac’s driver testified that the two men who carjacked\nhim forced him to the ground and struck him in the back of\nthe head with a gun. With respect to the Ford Focus, the vic‐\ntim testified that Hunter pressed a firearm into his stomach\nand took his possessions, including his car. The government\nprovided evidence that both instances involved threats\nbacked by a deadly weapon. One instance involved serious\nphysical harm. The government provided sufficient evidence\nto establish the mens rea.\n III. CONCLUSION\n For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district\ncourt is AFFIRMED.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: United States v. Otis Hunter\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-08-05\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044\\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\\n Plaintiff‐Appellee,\\n v.\\n\\nOTIS HUNTER and\\nDESHAWN EVANS,\\n Defendants‐Appellants.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeals from the United States District Court for the\\n Eastern District of Wisconsin.\\n Nos. 17‐CR‐29‐2 and 17‐CR‐29‐4 — J.P. Stadtmueller, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED APRIL 5, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 5, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before FLAUM, KANNE, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.\\n KANNE, Circuit Judge. Police arrested five men involved in\\na string of Milwaukee armed robberies in late 2016. Three of\\nthe defendants cooperated with the government and pled\\nguilty. The two remaining defendants, Otis Hunter and\\nDeshawn Evans, proceeded to trial where a jury convicted\\nthem. Through counsel, the pair challenges the district court’s\\nhandling of jury selection and denial of their Batson challenge.\\n\\f2 Nos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044\\n\\nThey also challenge our circuit precedent and argue that the\\ndistrict court violated the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation\\nClause when it prevented them from cross‐examining gov‐\\nernment witnesses about the specific prison terms they\\navoided through their cooperation. After obtaining authori‐\\nzation from the court, Hunter made additional, pro se argu‐\\nments challenging how the trial court handled witness testi‐\\nmony and whether the government provided sufficient evi‐\\ndence to support his conviction. All challenges are rejected\\nand we affirm.\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n Authorities arrested five men in connection with a series\\nof crimes in late 2016: Dominique Rollins, Otis Hunter, Kelly\\nScott, Deshawn Evans, and Anthony Lindsey. Rollins, Scott,\\nand Lindsey pled guilty and testified for the government, but\\nHunter and Evans proceeded to trial.\\n The government connected the defendants to the follow‐\\ning crimes. First, on November 17, 2016, Hunter, Rollins, and\\nScott committed an armed robbery of a Roman’s Food Market.\\nThey held up an employee, made him open the cash register,\\nstruck him on the head with a pistol, and then took the money\\nand a large quantity of Newport cigarettes. Surveillance foot‐\\nage captured the robbery. Rollins and Scott testified at trial\\nthat they robbed the store with Hunter. They also narrated the\\nsurveillance footage and identified Hunter and his pistol. At\\nthe time of the robberies, Doris Brown—Lindsey’s mother\\nand Scott’s fiancée—lived at a house on 15th Place where the\\ndefendants regularly congregated. She later testified that she\\nsaw Hunter with many packs of Newport cigarettes. She also\\nviewed the surveillance footage and identified the robbers.\\n\\fNos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044 3\\n\\n Three days later, on November 20, two men committed an\\narmed carjacking of a food delivery driver outside of Aurora\\nSinai Hospital. The robbers struck the driver on the head with\\na pistol, took his phone, car keys, and wallet, and fled in his\\nblack Cadillac CTS. Surveillance footage captured the rob‐\\nbery. Scott and Lindsey viewed the footage at trial and iden‐\\ntified the pair as Hunter and Evans.\\n Then on November 22, three men with stocking‐covered\\nfaces robbed a George Webb restaurant. Two of the robbers\\nbrandished pistols. They took $70 in cash and some receipts\\nfrom the register and held up employees. The three fled the\\nscene in a black Cadillac. As before, surveillance footage cap‐\\ntured the robbery. Scott and Lindsey confessed to robbing the\\nrestaurant with Hunter and identified Hunter and Scott at\\ntrial as the pair who brandished firearms.\\n A day after the George Webb robbery, on November 23,\\npolice found the black Cadillac CTS parked near the home on\\n15th Place where the defendants met. Inside the car, they\\nfound receipts from the George Webb restaurant and a nylon\\nstocking. DNA recovered from the stocking linked it to de‐\\nfendant Anthony Lindsey.\\n On November 25, two men attempted to rob a Walgreens\\npharmacy at gunpoint. One of the two men brandished a pis‐\\ntol and pointed it at the cashier. When the cashier failed to\\nopen the register, the robber struck him on the head with the\\npistol, knocking him to the ground. The robbers also failed to\\nopen the register. They instead attempted to rob the custom‐\\ners as a consolation but recovered no valuables. Surveillance\\nfootage captured the attempted robbery. Lindsey, Scott, and\\nDoris Brown viewed the footage at trial and identified the rob‐\\n\\f4 Nos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044\\n\\nbers as defendants Hunter and Evans, with Evans brandish‐\\ning the firearm and striking the cashier. Brown also testified\\nthat she overheard Hunter discussing the Walgreen’s robbery\\nat her house.\\n On December 4, two men carjacked the owner of a Ford\\nFocus. They cornered the victim against the side of the car,\\none pressed a firearm into the victim’s stomach, and they\\nrobbed him, taking his credit cards, phone, and wallet before\\nmaking their escape in his vehicle. About 30 minutes after the\\ncarjacking, the robbers used the victim’s credit cards at a Foot\\nLocker store. The Foot Locker’s surveillance footage from the\\ntime of the purchase showed Hunter there, accompanied by a\\nminor. The victim identified the pair as the carjackers through\\nphotographs and later identified Hunter in court as the car‐\\njacker who pressed the pistol into his stomach. Brown, Scott,\\nLindsey, and Rollins each viewed the surveillance footage\\nand identified Hunter.\\n On December 5, the stolen Ford Focus turned up parked\\nbehind the house on 15th Place. Police arrested Evans, the mi‐\\nnor, and Anthony Lindsey in the car. Hunter—on‐the‐run—\\nwas arrested five days later in Ohio. Hunter’s vehicle con‐\\ntained new Foot Locker merchandise and multiple Foot\\nLocker receipts dated December 4, which reflected purchases\\nmade with the credit cards taken during the Ford Focus car‐\\njacking.\\n The grand jury returned an 11‐count indictment against\\nthe five men. Relevant to this appeal, Hunter was charged\\nwith conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371), robbery of the Roman’s\\nFood Market under the Hobbs Act (18 U.S.C. § 1951), carjack‐\\ning the Cadillac (18 U.S.C. § 2119), robbery of the George\\nWebb restaurant under the Hobbs Act, attempted robbery of\\n\\fNos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044 5\\n\\nthe Walgreens under the Hobbs Act, and carjacking the Ford\\nFocus. Hunter was also charged with brandishing a firearm\\nduring each of these crimes in violation of 18 U.S.C.\\n§ 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). Evans faced charges for conspiracy, carjack‐\\ning the Cadillac, and the attempted robbery at Walgreens. He\\nwas also charged with brandishing a firearm during these\\ncrimes.\\n Hunter and Evans—who are both African Americans—\\nproceeded to a jury trial. As a preface to jury selection, the\\ncourt questioned all potential jurors about their experiences\\ntestifying under oath in the judicial system and the courts.\\nHowever, multiple jurors failed to disclose relevant infor‐\\nmation related to this line of questioning. During jury selec‐\\ntion, the government struck several jurors for cause and used\\nits peremptory strikes. The entire jury pool included just three\\npotential African American jurors. The initial voir dire in‐\\ncluded only two. One of these two, Juror 12, was eventually\\nempaneled.\\n The government questioned the other potential African\\nAmerican juror, Juror 7, about an allegedly racially‐charged\\nFacebook post on her profile. The government also learned\\nthat Juror 7’s family had significant contacts with the criminal\\njustice system and she personally had other abject experiences\\nwith the courts. Specifically, Juror 7’s son has been adjudi‐\\ncated delinquent on multiple occasions, and her ex‐husband\\nwas occasionally imprisoned following numerous convic‐\\ntions. During one of her ex‐husband’s arrests, authorities\\nseized her firearm, which she later petitioned a court to re‐\\ncover. Juror 7 had also been through multiple eviction pro‐\\nceedings, a bankruptcy, and received adverse judgments for\\nfailing to pay utility bills. Altogether, during the first round\\n\\f6 Nos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044\\n\\nof voir dire questioning, Juror 7 never disclosed a number of\\nher contacts with the courts and criminal justice system.\\n The government moved to exclude Juror 7 for cause, but\\nthe district court denied the motion. Before defense counsel\\neven raised an objection, the district court specifically warned\\nthe government that if it moved to strike Juror 7, the court\\nwould conduct a Batson hearing. The government neverthe‐\\nless used one of its peremptory strikes against Juror 7. Before\\nthe district court swore in the selected panel, the defendants\\nraised a Batson challenge.\\n During the Batson hearing, the government explained that\\nit struck Juror 7 due to her numerous abject engagements with\\nlaw enforcement and the courts. In response, defense counsel\\nlaid out examples that it argued demonstrated the govern‐\\nment’s disparate treatment of similarly‐situated white jurors.\\nIt pointed out that the government never attempted to strike\\nthree other jurors who also had similar judicial encounters.\\nMoreover, the defense pointed out that Juror 35, a white male,\\nhad been recently charged with firearm‐related offenses but\\nfound not guilty by reason of temporary insanity. Addition‐\\nally, the defense suggested that the government’s questions\\nabout Juror 7’s Facebook posts demonstrated the impermissi‐\\nble, racial motivation for the strike. For its part, the govern‐\\nment explained that it was not previously aware of Juror 35’s\\nidentity or background and directed the court’s attention to a\\nlist of potential jurors that the court gave to the parties a week\\nearlier. That list did not include Juror 35. The court deter‐\\nmined that it needed to investigate the matter. It ordered the\\nparties to submit same‐day briefing on the Batson challenge\\nand adjourned for the day.\\n\\fNos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044 7\\n\\n On the second day of trial, the district court determined\\nthat the clerk’s office failed to include information about Juror\\n35 and several others in the materials it distributed to the par‐\\nties.1 The court allowed the parties to conduct supplemental\\nvoir dire for a few jurors, beginning with Juror 5, whom de‐\\nfense counsel identified during its Batson challenge as an ex‐\\nample of the government’s disparate treatment. On further\\nquestioning, despite initially claiming to have never been in‐\\nvolved with the courts, Juror 5 admitted that he experienced\\na foreclosure and a bankruptcy years earlier but claimed he\\ndid not understand the court’s earlier questions about previ‐\\nous court experience.\\n The parties then questioned Juror 35, a white man. The ad‐\\nditional questions revealed that Juror 35 suffered from PTSD\\nand was found not guilty by reason of a temporary mental\\ndeficiency to three counts related to an incident involving his\\ndischarging a firearm. Juror 35 also disclosed a divorce and a\\nbankruptcy. The government then moved to strike Juror 35\\nfor cause.\\n Next, the court allowed the government to conduct sup‐\\nplemental voir dire questioning of Juror 36, a white woman.\\nThe government’s questioning revealed that Juror 36’s\\nbrother had been convicted of a sexual assault of a minor\\nmore than 30 years earlier. She too had been through a divorce\\nand a bankruptcy years earlier.\\n After the parties finished supplemental voir dire of Juror\\n36, the bailiff informed the court that Juror 35 was in the re‐\\nstroom, vomiting. The government renewed its motion to\\n\\n\\n 1 The record does not clearly identify the other affected jurors.\\n\\f8 Nos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044\\n\\nstrike Juror 35 for cause, which the court granted over\\nHunter’s counsel’s objection.\\n To remedy the confusion regarding missing juror infor‐\\nmation, the district court then started jury selection over from\\nthe same venire. The district court asked all potential jurors,\\nagain, about their involvement with the court systems, giving\\nexplicit examples of different types of relevant proceedings\\nwhere they might have been sworn and given testimony.\\nMultiple jurors then acknowledged that they should have re‐\\nsponded affirmatively to a similar question the day before.\\nThe parties selected a new panel and the government re‐\\nnewed its peremptory strike against Juror 7. However, this\\ntime it also used a peremptory strike on Juror 36.\\n The defense again objected under Batson, arguing that the\\ngovernment treated Juror 7 differently based on her race. The\\ngovernment explained that it struck all jurors who had nega‐\\ntive experiences with the criminal justice system. The defense\\nreplied that the government used its strikes as a pretext for\\nexcluding Juror 7. The defense also complained that the\\ncourt’s process of going back and re‐examining the other po‐\\ntential jurors enabled the government to make a post‐hoc jus‐\\ntification of its impermissible, race‐based strike.\\n The district court concluded the defendants failed to es‐\\ntablish that the government struck Juror 7 on account of her\\nrace. The court noted that, altogether, the government exe‐\\ncuted peremptory strikes on six jurors: five white jurors and\\nJuror 7. Similarly, the court recognized that the government\\narticulated a legitimate, race‐neutral reason for striking Juror\\n7, and that the government struck other similarly‐situated\\nwhite jurors. The district court then swore in the jury, which\\nincluded one African American juror, Juror 12.\\n\\fNos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044 9\\n\\n As previously mentioned, three of the original defendants\\npled guilty and testified for the government. During their tes‐\\ntimony, defense counsel sought to impeach these witnesses\\non the basis that they each benefitted from reduced sentences\\nby virtue of their cooperation with the government. However,\\nat the government’s objection, the district court limited this\\ncross‐examination. Because each of the witnesses originally\\nfaced similar charges to Hunter and Evans, the government\\nworried jurors might deduce the potential imprisonment\\nterms that Hunter and Evans faced. The district court permit‐\\nted cross‐examination about the sentence reduction, but ex‐\\ncluded questioning about the specific terms of their possible\\nsentences.\\n The government also called Steven Strasser, an investiga‐\\ntor at the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office, to tes‐\\ntify at trial. The government never identified Strasser as either\\nan expert or a summary witness ahead of trial, but Strasser\\nbegan his testimony drawing on his professional experiences\\nand his general observations from reviewing hundreds of rob‐\\nberies. After Strasser began to draw comparisons between the\\nsurveillance videos from the different robberies to show con‐\\nsistent patterns, the defense objected. The court found that the\\ngovernment should have designated Strasser as a summary\\nwitness and, because it failed to do so, Strasser’s testimony\\nshould be limited. The court also determined that the testi‐\\nmony was cumulative because the evidence the government\\nexpected him to testify to spoke for itself. The district court\\nlimited Strasser’s testimony to issues of his own involvement\\nin the case. Neither party asked for a curative instruction to\\nthe jury for the testimony that Strasser gave before the de‐\\nfendants’ objection. The district court provided no curative or\\nlimiting instruction.\\n\\f10 Nos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044\\n\\n The jury convicted Hunter and Evans. The district court\\nsentenced them to their mandatory minimum sentences plus\\none day: 107 years for Hunter and 32 years for Evans.\\n II. ANALYSIS\\n On appeal, Hunter and Evans share two main arguments.\\nFirst, the pair argues that the district court erred by rejecting\\ntheir Batson challenge. Second, they argue that the district\\ncourt improperly limited cross‐examination of the govern‐\\nment’s cooperating witnesses about reductions in their poten‐\\ntial sentences.\\n Despite receiving appointed counsel, Hunter also sought\\nand received permission from the court to raise additional ar‐\\nguments, pro se. He objects, pro se, along three lines. First, he\\nmaintains that the district court should have excluded some\\nwitness testimony as hearsay or unduly prejudicial. Second,\\nHunter claims that the district court erred by failing to pro‐\\nvide a curative instruction advising the jury to ignore a por‐\\ntion of Strasser’s testimony. Lastly, Hunter believes that the\\ngovernment proffered insufficient evidence to prove the inter‐\\nstate‐commerce elements on two of the business robberies\\nand the mens rea elements of carjacking.\\n A. The District Court Committed No Error By Rejecting the\\n Batson Challenge\\n Hunter and Evans argue that the district court failed to\\nconduct an adequate Batson inquiry and also improperly ac‐\\ncepted the government’s “implausible” race‐neutral rationale\\nfor striking Juror 7. We review the district court’s finding on\\na Batson challenge for clear error. United States v. Carter, 111\\nF.3d 509, 512 (7th Cir. 1997). “[T]o reverse we must have a firm\\nand definite conviction that a mistake was made.” United\\n\\fNos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044 11\\n\\nStates v. Taylor, 636 F.3d 901, 905 (7th Cir. 2011) (quotation\\nomitted). The Supreme Court has described our standard of\\nreview as “highly deferential.” See Flowers v. Mississippi, 139\\nS. Ct. 2228, 2244 (2019).\\n In Batson, the Supreme Court determined that “the Equal\\nProtection Clause forbids the prosecutor to challenge poten‐\\ntial jurors solely on account of their race or on the assumption\\nthat black jurors as a group will be unable impartially to con‐\\nsider the State’s case against a black defendant.” Batson v. Ken‐\\ntucky, 476 U.S. 79, 89 (1986).\\n There are three steps to a Batson challenge. First, the de‐\\nfendant makes a prima facie showing that the prosecution’s\\nperemptory strikes were discriminatory. Id. at 93‐94. Second,\\nthe government must tender a nonracial reason for the use of\\nits peremptory strike. Id. Lastly, the district court must decide\\nwhether the defendant established purposeful discrimina‐\\ntion. Id. Where the prosecution has “offered a race‐neutral ex‐\\nplanation for the peremptory challenge, the test is com‐\\npressed down to the ultimate question of intentional discrim‐\\nination; the preliminary question of a prima facie case becomes\\nmoot.” Carter, 111 F.3d at 512 n.1 (citing Hernandez v. New\\nYork, 500 U.S. 352, 359 (1991)).\\n Fundamentally, Hunter and Evans seem to believe that be‐\\ncause the court restarted jury selection from the same panel,\\nthe government had time to come up with an ostensibly legit‐\\nimate excuse for striking Juror 7. They charge that the govern‐\\nment clearly demonstrated its impermissible racial motiva‐\\ntion by failing to investigate and strike similarly‐situated ju‐\\nrors. Consequently, they believe they met their Batson burden\\nwith the first panel, but the government was able to hide its\\ndiscriminatory purpose by striking other potential jurors on\\n\\f12 Nos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044\\n\\nsimilar grounds in the second, “redo” panel. The “redo”\\npanel, therefore, deprived them of a valid Batson challenge\\nand prejudiced them.\\n Viewing the whole record, we believe the district court ul‐\\ntimately committed no clear error. But two arguments which\\nHunter and Evans make merit further discussion. First, the\\ngovernment did not ask all other potential jurors the same\\nnumber of probing questions about relationships with the\\ncourts or the criminal justice system. However, it appears that\\nmany of those other jurors (like Juror 7) either failed to dis‐\\nclose all the details they should have or did not understand\\nthis line of questioning. The district court attempted to correct\\nthe jury issues on the “redo” panel by clarifying the question\\nfor the potential jurors. When the government learned of oth‐\\ners’ contacts with the courts, it struck those jurors, too.\\n Second, the government initially did not strike Juror 35,\\ndespite his recent and serious criminal charges. But the clerk’s\\noffice failed to distribute an updated potential juror list to the\\nparties, so the government had no opportunity to investigate\\nand strike Juror 35, as it did other jurors. This error demon‐\\nstrates that the government’s different treatment of Juror 35\\nwas motivated by ignorance, not race. The district court cor‐\\nrected the error when it afforded the parties an opportunity\\nto conduct additional questioning.\\n The record reflects the district court’s Batson concerns. The\\ncourt advised the government that the parties would conduct\\na full Batson hearing if the government used a peremptory\\nstrike against Juror 7. The court also provided a long explana‐\\ntion to the parties as to why it denied the defendants’ Batson\\nchallenge. The defendants urged that the court’s “redo” al‐\\n\\fNos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044 13\\n\\nlowed the government to cure its pretextual excuse for strik‐\\ning Juror 7 by also striking similarly‐situated white jurors.\\nThey argue that this effectively allowed the government to ex‐\\npand its facially race‐neutral rationale, conflicting with Taylor.\\nThat case involved multiple remands from our court to the\\ndistrict court for further exploration of the government’s prof‐\\nfered reason for striking an African American juror. However,\\nwhen the district court conducted another Batson hearing to\\nsupplement the record on remand, “the government took the\\nopportunity to expand on its rationale for striking [the juror],\\nadvancing seven new reasons[.]” Taylor, 636 F.3d at 904. We\\nheld that “[a]ccepting new, unrelated reasons extending well\\nbeyond the prosecutor’s original justification for striking [a\\njuror] amounts to clear error.” Id. at 906.\\n Here, the district court never swore the jury, but instead\\nstarted selection over after new information came to light. The\\ngovernment’s justification for striking Juror 7 remained con‐\\nsistent throughout the whole process. In the wake of a clerical\\nerror, the court’s voir dire process sought to reveal all neces‐\\nsary juror information to benefit the parties. To ensure a fair\\ntrial, the district court had the parties start over in selecting\\nand striking jurors. The district court’s restart process allowed\\nthe government to apply its rationale more evenly and fairly,\\nbut not to expand it. Even if we agree that the district court\\ncould have conducted a more perfect jury selection by starting\\nover with a new panel, we do not believe the district court’s\\n“redo” in this case constituted clear error. The Supreme Court\\nexpressly declined to mandate a procedural approach for\\nhandling jury selection after a party raises a Batson challenge.\\nBatson, 476 U.S. at 99 (“We decline, however, to formulate par‐\\nticular procedures to be followed upon a defendant’s timely\\nobjection to a prosecutor’s challenges.”). See also id. at n.24\\n\\f14 Nos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044\\n\\n(noting the variety of jury selection processes employed in\\nAmerican courts). The district court provided a fair procedure\\nfor jury selection in this case. United States v. Mannie, 509 F.3d\\n851, 857 (7th Cir. 2007) (“It is axiomatic in our system of justice\\nthat an individual is entitled to a fair trial—not a perfect\\none.”).\\n B. The District Court Properly Limited Defense Counsel’s\\n Cross‐Examination of Government Witnesses\\n Hunter and Evans argue that the district court erred by\\npreventing them from cross‐examining the government’s wit‐\\nnesses about the specific mandatory minimum sentences they\\navoided by cooperating with the government. They believe\\nthe district court’s limitation violated the Sixth Amendment’s\\nConfrontation Clause.\\n “Our standard of review when a district court limits the\\ndefendant’s cross‐examination depends on whether the\\ncourt’s limit directly implicates the core values of the Con‐\\nfrontation Clause. If so, we review the limit de novo. If not, we\\nreview the limit only for abuse of discretion.” United States v.\\nTrent, 863 F.3d 699, 704 (7th Cir. 2017) (internal quotations\\nomitted).\\n To advance their argument, Hunter and Evans directly\\nchallenge and invite us to overturn our opinion in United\\nStates v. Trent. We decline their invitation. In Trent, we held\\nthat limiting cross‐examination of government witnesses\\nabout specific sentences and the sentencing guideline ranges\\nthey faced before and after their cooperation with the govern‐\\nment did not violate a defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights.\\n863 F.3d at 706. We explained that to satisfy the Confrontation\\nClause, it is enough that a defendant can elicit that witnesses\\n\\fNos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044 15\\n\\nwill receive a “substantial” reduction in imprisonment. Id.\\nThis limitation is sometimes necessary when criminal defend‐\\nants and government witnesses face the same criminal\\ncharges. We explained that if the jury learned about the pre‐\\ncise sentence terms that government witnesses faced, then it\\ncould deduce or infer the sentences facing the similarly‐\\ncharged defendants. Id. Consequently, the reality of a serious\\nsentence could prejudice the jury and cause it to acquit the\\ndefendants of crimes they actually committed. Id.\\n Hunter and Evans claim that Trent overstates the risk of\\nprejudice from cross‐examination about the mandatory mini‐\\nmum sentences. They argue Trent violates the Confrontation\\nClause and suggest that other circuits disagree with our anal‐\\nysis. To support this claim, Hunter and Evans cite cases from\\nthree other circuits. See United States v. Chandler, 326 F.3d 210\\n(3d Cir. 2003); United States v. Cooks, 52 F.3d 101 (5th Cir. 1995);\\nUnited States v. Larson, 495 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc).\\n However, Chandler and Cooks are distinguishable in that\\nneither the Third nor the Fifth Circuits adopted categorical\\napproaches stating that defendants can cross‐examine coop‐\\nerating witnesses on the precise nature of their prison terms.\\nIn both cases, the courts determined that the analysis depends\\non whether the jury has sufficient information “to appraise\\nthe bias and motives of the witness.” Cooks, 52 F.3d at 104;\\nUnited States v. Mussare, 405 F.3d 161, 170 (3d Cir. 2005) (“In\\nChandler, we left unresolved the question of whether the Con‐\\nfrontation Clause entitles a defendant categorically to inquire\\ninto the concrete terms of a cooperating witness’s agreement\\nwith the government, including the sentence that witness\\nmay have avoided through his cooperation.”) (quotation\\nomitted).\\n\\f16 Nos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044\\n\\n And the Ninth Circuit’s Larson opinion hinges on the fact\\nthat the cooperating witness in that case faced a particularly\\nsevere sentence: life imprisonment. Larson, 495 F.3d at 1107\\n(“[A]ny reduction from a mandatory life sentence is of such a\\nsignificant magnitude that excluding this information de‐\\nnie[s] the jury important information necessary to evaluate\\n[the witness’s] credibility.”). We do not find the Ninth Cir‐\\ncuit’s analysis so persuasive as to abandon Trent. The Eighth\\nCircuit explicitly rejected Larson’s approach. See United States\\nv. Wright, 866 F.3d 899, 907 (8th Cir. 2017). And at any rate,\\nnone of the government’s witnesses in this case faced a sen‐\\ntence of life imprisonment.\\n Here, the district court directly followed our guidance in\\nTrent. The record shows that the defense cross‐examined the\\ngovernment’s witnesses on the fact that they benefitted from\\ncooperating with the government. Specifically, defense coun‐\\nsel elicited from witnesses that, without cooperating, they\\nwould have, “never seen the light of day” and would have\\n“died in prison.” The defense’s cross‐examination exposed\\nenough information for the jury to deduce that the witnesses\\nreceived a serious benefit from cooperating with the govern‐\\nment. See Trent, 863 F.3d at 706 (“Because the court allowed\\nTrent to engage in this thorough cross‐examination, which\\nreadily exposed any of [the witnesses’] biases and incentives\\nto testify adversely to Trent, the court did not offend the core\\nvalues of the Confrontation Clause.”). As in Trent, the district\\ncourt’s limitation did not significantly impact Hunter and Ev‐\\nans’ ability to cross‐examine adverse witnesses.\\n C. Hunter’s Pro Se Arguments Do Not Prevail\\n Despite Hunter’s representation by counsel, we also au‐\\nthorized him to present several arguments in an additional,\\n\\fNos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044 17\\n\\npro se brief. “Although there is no Sixth Amendment right to\\nfile a pro se brief when the appellant is represented by counsel,\\nnothing precludes an appellate court from accepting the pro\\nse brief and considering the arguments contained therein for\\nwhatever they may be worth.” Hayes v. Hawes, 921 F.2d 100,\\n102 (7th Cir. 1990) (per curiam). Although sometimes author‐\\nized (as here), the filing of pro se briefs by a defendant who is\\nrepresented by counsel is generally unhelpful. We consider\\nHunter’s remaining, pro se arguments in turn.\\n 1. The District Court Made Proper Evidentiary Rulings\\n Hunter, pro se, raises challenges to several evidentiary rul‐\\nings made by the district court. “We review the admission of\\nevidence for an abuse of discretion and ‘will reverse an evi‐\\ndentiary ruling only when the record contains no evidence on\\nwhich the district court rationally could have based its rul‐\\ning.’” United States v. Quiroz, 874 F.3d 562, 569 (7th Cir. 2017)\\n(quoting United States v. Gorman, 613 F.3d 711, 717 (7th Cir.\\n2010)).\\n First, Hunter believes that the district court should have\\nexcluded Brown’s testimony because she was a “biased” wit‐\\nness. Earlier we mentioned that Brown’s son and fiancé were\\ndefendants in the case who pled guilty and agreed to testify\\nagainst Hunter and Evans. To support this argument, Hunter\\ncites United States v. Abel, 469 U.S. 45, 53 (1984). However, Abel\\nestablished that evidence of membership in a prison gang\\ncould be introduced to impeach a witness because it was pro‐\\nbative of witness bias, not that biased witness testimony could\\nnever be admitted. Id. Indeed, the Court in Abel specifically\\nvalidated exposing witness bias as an acceptable means of im‐\\npeachment under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Id. at 51. And\\nHunter’s counsel exposed Brown’s relationship to two of the\\n\\f18 Nos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044\\n\\ngovernment’s cooperating witnesses and her potential bias on\\ncross‐examination. We therefore find no error in allowing\\nBrown’s testimony.\\n Second, Hunter challenges another portion of Brown’s\\ntrial testimony on hearsay grounds. At trial, Brown testified\\nto overhearing Hunter discuss details of the Walgreen’s rob‐\\nbery in her kitchen. Over defense counsel’s objection, the dis‐\\ntrict court agreed with the government that that the testimony\\nfell into the hearsay exception for a statement by a party op‐\\nponent. Fed. R. Evid. 801. We agree. The Rule provides that\\nstatements made by a party in an individual capacity that are\\nlater offered against him are not hearsay. Fed. R. Evid.\\n801(d)(2)(A). Hunter attempts to rely on United States v. El‐\\nMezain for the proposition that “a witness’s testimony must\\nbe based on personal knowledge.” 664 F.3d 467, 495 (5th Cir.\\n2011). He claims that because Brown testified that she learned\\nof the Walgreens robbery from the news, she did not base her\\ntestimony about his involvement in the robbery on personal\\nknowledge. Hunter’s argument misses the point. Brown’s tes‐\\ntimony centered on her personal knowledge of what she\\nheard Hunter say, and those things are admissible as non‐\\nhearsay statements by a party opponent. Jordan v. Binns, 712\\nF.3d 1123, 1128–29 (7th Cir. 2013) (“There are only two re‐\\nquirements for admissibility under FRE 801(d)(2)(A): a state‐\\nment was made by a party, and the statement was offered\\nagainst that party.”).\\n Hunter similarly objects to testimony given by Kelly Scott,\\none of the co‐defendants who cooperated with the govern‐\\nment. Like Brown, Hunter believes Scott was a biased witness,\\nbut this complaint fails for the same reason. Hunter and Evans\\nmade Scott’s cooperation with the government an issue at\\n\\fNos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044 19\\n\\ntrial, suggesting that Scott’s reward for cooperating—a re‐\\nduced sentence—motivated him to fabricate his testimony\\nagainst them. Attempting to rehabilitate Scott, the govern‐\\nment asked him whether he had anything to fear by cooper‐\\nating and testifying. Scott mentioned that someone had hit\\nhim over the head in jail. The district court overruled the de‐\\nfense’s objection for relevance. Scott also testified that he over‐\\nheard Hunter and Evans discussing the case and making\\nthreats against him in a holding area during the trial.\\n Hunter claims that the district court should have excluded\\nthis testimony as irrelevant and characterizes it as highly prej‐\\nudicial to the jury. We previously have held that evidence of\\nthreats by a defendant against a prosecution witness on direct\\nexamination is inadmissible unless it is linked to a specific\\ncredibility issue at trial—like a witness’s behavior on the\\nstand or testimony that is inconsistent with prior statements.\\nSee United States v. Thomas, 86 F.3d 647, 654 (7th Cir. 1996);\\nUnited States v. Thompson, 359 F.3d 470, 477 (7th Cir. 2004). In‐\\ndeed, Thomas and Thompson each rejected efforts to use threats\\nagainst a witness to generally “bolster” or “boost” a witness’s\\ncredibility. However, we have also held that “[o]nce a wit‐\\nness’s credibility has been attacked…the non‐attacking party\\nis permitted to admit evidence to ‘rehabilitate’ the witness.”\\nUnited States v. Lindemann, 85 F.3d 1232, 1242 (7th Cir. 1996).\\nWe have explained that the government may introduce testi‐\\nmony about a witness’s motives on direct examination when\\nsuch testimony is rehabilitative and likely to give the jury a\\nfull picture. United States v. McKinney, 954 F.2d 471, 479 (7th\\nCir. 1992).\\n Hunter’s defense counsel aggressively challenged the in‐\\ntegrity of the government’s witnesses from the trial’s start and\\n\\f20 Nos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044\\n\\nvigorously cross‐examined them about their motivations to\\nlie. With respect to Scott, defense counsel thoroughly walked\\nthrough Scott’s inconsistent statements, criminal history, and\\nhis belief that lying to the police is occasionally permissible.\\nThe threats occurred in the midst of and in response to Scott’s\\ndecision to testify for the government, so they were relevant\\nto his testimony and credibility. In this context, we cannot\\nagree that the district court abused its discretion by allowing\\nScott to testify to the adverse consequences of his cooperation.\\nSee id. (“Whether the potential for unfair prejudice of a given\\npiece of evidence outweighs its probative value is a decision\\nleft to the district court’s discretion.”).\\n Accordingly, we find no errors in the district court’s evi‐\\ndentiary rulings.\\n Hunter also claims that Dominique Rollins gave “false tes‐\\ntimony” on the government’s behalf. A defendant who\\n“seek[s] a new trial based on perjured testimony has the bur‐\\nden to show that (1) the prosecution’s case included perjured\\ntestimony; (2) the prosecution knew, or should have known,\\nof the perjury; and (3) there is a likelihood that the false testi‐\\nmony affected the judgment of the jury.” United States v.\\nCosby, 924 F.3d 329, 336 (7th Cir. 2019) (citation and internal\\nquotation omitted). Hunter points to confusion and seeming\\ncontradictions in Rollins’ testimony to support this claim. But\\neven if Rollins gave confused testimony, Hunter fails to point\\nto convincing evidence of perjury, much less perjury that the\\ngovernment knowingly proffered. We therefore conclude that\\nthis claim also fails.\\n 2. The Lack of a Curative Instruction for Investigator\\n Strasser’s Limited Testimony Was No Error\\n\\fNos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044 21\\n\\n Hunter believes that the district court should have admin‐\\nistered a curative instruction to the jury advising it to disre‐\\ngard a portion of Strasser’s trial testimony. The defense ob‐\\njected to Strasser’s testimony on the grounds that the govern‐\\nment never designated him as an expert or summary witness.\\nThe district court sustained the defense’s objections and de‐\\ntermined that Strasser could only testify to evidence in the\\ncase that he personally worked on or developed. However,\\nbefore the objection, Strasser testified that he had viewed hun‐\\ndreds of examples of robbery footage and that generally crim‐\\ninals use the same tactics in each robbery. In his pro se brief,\\nHunter claims that the district court should have issued a cu‐\\nrative instruction to advise the jury to disregard Strasser’s\\nbrief, pre‐objection testimony. The defense did not request a\\ncurative instruction at the time. Reviewing this on a plain er‐\\nror standard, Hunter’s argument fails. United States v. Chris‐\\ntian, 673 F.3d 702, 708 (7th Cir. 2012) (plain error requires that\\nabsent the error, the defendant probably would not have been\\nconvicted). Strasser’s brief comments before the objection\\nprovided little information and could not have significantly\\nprejudiced Hunter.\\n 3. The Government Presented Sufficient Evidence to Support\\n Hunter’s Convictions\\n Hunter argues that the government failed to offer evi‐\\ndence to prove every element of his conviction under the\\nHobbs Act, which criminalizes robbery or extortion that af‐\\nfects commerce. See 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a). Hunter specifically\\nclaims that the government failed to prove that the robberies\\naffected interstate commerce. However, the government only\\nneeds to show a de minimis effect on interstate commerce.\\nUnited States v. Bailey, 227 F.3d 792, 797 (7th Cir. 2000). Here,\\n\\f22 Nos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044\\n\\nthe parties stipulated that the Roman’s Food Market and the\\nGeorge Webb restaurant were businesses engaged in inter‐\\nstate commerce. Hunter was involved in robbing both stores,\\nwhich temporarily shut down after the robberies. Therefore,\\nthe government provided sufficient evidence to satisfy the\\n“affects commerce” element of the Act.\\n Hunter lastly argues that the government produced insuf‐\\nficient evidence to satisfy the mens rea element for the car jack‐\\nings. Under 18 U.S.C. § 2119, a defendant must “inten[d] to\\ncause death or serious bodily harm.” Given the defendants’\\naffinity for pistol‐whipping their victims, we find it hard to\\nsee the basis for this argument. We previously explained that\\nthe defendant need not actually attempt to kill or harm the\\nvictim, but rather must possess a “conditional intent to do the\\ndriver harm had he not complied with the defendants’ de‐\\nmands.” United States v Jones, 188 F.3d 773, 777 (7th Cir. 1999).\\nThe Cadillac’s driver testified that the two men who carjacked\\nhim forced him to the ground and struck him in the back of\\nthe head with a gun. With respect to the Ford Focus, the vic‐\\ntim testified that Hunter pressed a firearm into his stomach\\nand took his possessions, including his car. The government\\nprovided evidence that both instances involved threats\\nbacked by a deadly weapon. One instance involved serious\\nphysical harm. The government provided sufficient evidence\\nto establish the mens rea.\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district\\ncourt is AFFIRMED.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3789,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4645743,"string":"4,645,743"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Michael Campos v. Cook County"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-08-05"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-3472"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before KANNE, SYKES, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"Michael Stephen Kanne\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-3472\\nMICHAEL O. CAMPOS,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n v.\\n\\nCOOK COUNTY, et al.,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 18-cv-2305 — Charles R. Norgle, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED MAY 29, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 5, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before KANNE, SYKES, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\\n KANNE, Circuit Judge. After Michael Campos’s August\\n2011 arrest for driving under the influence, his employer—the\\nCook County Sheriff’s Office—began termination proceed-\\nings. The Merit Board has voted to terminate Campos’s em-\\nployment on two occasions. But both times the Cook County\\nCircuit Court vacated the decision. And, to this day, the ter-\\nmination proceedings are ongoing. Instead of waiting for\\ntheir completion, Campos filed this federal law suit alleging,\\n\\f2 No. 18-3472\\n\\namong other things, that the protracted proceedings have vi-\\nolated his substantive due process rights. Because Campos\\nhas not met the high standard for stating a substantive due\\nprocess claim, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of his\\nclaims.\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n In 1997, Michael Campos began working for the Cook\\nCounty Sheriff’s Office as a correctional officer. In August\\n2011, he was arrested for driving under the influence, striking\\na vehicle, and leaving the scene of an accident. Campos self-\\nreported the incident, and the sheriff suspended him without\\npay on November 29, 2011, and referred him for termination.\\nBy law, the Cook County Sheriff’s Merit Board has exclusive\\nauthority to terminate Sheriff’s Office employees. 55 Ill.\\nComp. Stat. 5/3-7012.\\n While the Merit Board proceedings were ongoing, the\\nCook County Circuit Court granted Campos’s motion to sup-\\npress and quashed his arrest. On October 15, 2015, the Merit\\nBoard voted to terminate Campos for violating state law. He\\npetitioned the circuit court for review approximately one year\\nlater. On January 18, 2017, the circuit court granted Campos’s\\npetition, vacated the Merit Board’s decision as too vague to\\nallow for judicial review, and remanded for a second attempt.\\n In April 2017, the Merit Board once again voted to termi-\\nnate Campos. He sought judicial review. And on March 9,\\n2018, the circuit court vacated and remanded a second time.\\nBut this time, the court vacated the Merit Board’s decision not\\nbecause of some defect in the reasoning but because of a de-\\nfect in the Merit Board’s composition.\\n\\fNo. 18-3472 3\\n\\n The circuit court relied upon a developing line of cases in-\\nvolving interim appointments to the Merit Board. In Taylor v.\\nDart, the Illinois Appellate Court found that the Merit Board\\nAct does not permit the sheriff to appoint Merit Board mem-\\nbers to terms of fewer than six years. 64 N.E.3d 123, 130 (Il.\\nApp. Ct. 2016) (citing 55 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/3–7002). Because\\none member of the Merit Board was serving an interim term\\nwhen the Board voted to terminate the plaintiff, the Taylor\\ncourt held that the decision was void. Id. at 132. The circuit\\ncourt found that the reasoning in Taylor applied with equal\\nforce to Campos. When the Merit Board voted to terminate\\nhim, one member was serving an interim term. 1\\n At this point, it had been almost seven years since the sher-\\niff suspended Campos without pay. Rather than wait for a\\nthird Merit Board decision, he filed suit in federal court. Cam-\\npos’s initial complaint—filed on March 29, 2018—named\\neighteen defendants and advanced five claims. Besides suing\\nCook County, the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office, the\\nsheriff, the Merit Board, and the Board’s members, he also\\nsued the law firm Steptoe and Johnson, LLP, and three of its\\nattorneys (who represented the county in the circuit court\\nproceedings). On May 2, 2018, the Steptoe defendants filed a\\nmotion to dismiss the claims against them. The district court\\nscheduled a hearing on the motion for May 11, 2018.\\n On May 10, Campos filed an amended complaint in which\\nhe renewed his claims against all defendants (except the Cook\\n\\n\\n 1 After Taylor, the Illinois General Assembly amended the Merit Board\\n\\nAct to allow the sheriff to make interim appointments. 55 Ill. Comp. Stat.\\n5/3-7002 (as amended effective Dec. 8, 2017). The sheriff has now reconsti-\\ntuted the Board, correcting the problem identified in Taylor.\\n\\f4 No. 18-3472\\n\\nCounty State’s Attorney’s Office) and added a sixth claim (for\\nFirst Amendment retaliation). The district court held the al-\\nready-scheduled hearing the next day. When plaintiff’s coun-\\nsel advised the court that he had filed an amended complaint\\nthe day before, the court noted that it had not granted leave\\nto file an amended complaint. The court referred to the Local\\nRules for the Northern District of Illinois and concluded that\\nthe original complaint remained the operative document. See\\nN.D. Ill. L.R. 5.3(b) (“Every motion or objection shall be ac-\\ncompanied by a notice of presentment specifying the date and\\ntime on which, and judge before whom, the motion or objec-\\ntion is to be presented.”). After that finding, the court dis-\\nmissed the Steptoe defendants with prejudice.\\n Several months later, the remaining defendants filed a mo-\\ntion to dismiss the amended complaint. On November 5, 2018,\\nthe court granted that motion and dismissed the amended\\ncomplaint with prejudice. Campos appealed.\\n II. ANALYSIS\\n We review the dismissal of a complaint for failure to state\\na claim de novo. Kanter v. Barr, 919 F.3d 437, 440 (7th Cir. 2019).\\nCampos’s amended complaint advances two substantive due\\nprocess claims, three conspiracy claims, and one First Amend-\\nment retaliation claim. Oddly, Campos does not bring a pro-\\ncedural due process claim, focusing instead on substantive\\ndue process. He does suggest that his conspiracy claims might\\nbe either substantive or procedural, but a plaintiff cannot\\nbring a § 1983 claim for conspiracy to deny a civil right unless\\nthe plaintiff states an underlying claim for denial of a right.\\nArcher v. Chisholm, 870 F.3d 603, 620 (7th Cir. 2017). Section\\n1983 conspiracy claims are derivative; they cannot stand\\nalone. In other words, because he has alleged no underlying\\n\\fNo. 18-3472 5\\n\\nprocedural due process violation, his conspiracy claims can-\\nnot be procedural in nature.\\n Accordingly, we limit our analysis to whether Campos has\\nstated substantive due process claims. For the reasons that fol-\\nlow, he has not. And, although Campos spends considerable\\ntime discussing recent decisions by the Illinois appellate\\ncourts which limit Taylor’s impact, we find this line of argu-\\nment to be a red herring. Because Campos did not state cog-\\nnizable claims, the district court properly dismissed with prej-\\nudice.\\n A. Campos Did Not State Substantive Due Process Claims\\n “[T]he scope of substantive due process is very limited.”\\nTun v. Whitticker, 398 F.3d 899, 902 (7th Cir. 2005) (citing Wash-\\nington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997)). And courts should\\nbe “reluctant to expand the concept of substantive due pro-\\ncess because guideposts for responsible decisionmaking in\\nthis unchartered area are scarce and open-ended.” Collins v.\\nCity of Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 125 (1992). Given its slip-\\npery nature, the requirements for stating a substantive due\\nprocess claim are similarly vague. A plaintiff must allege that\\nthe government violated a fundamental right or liberty.\\nGlucksberg, 521 U.S. at 720; Belcher v. Norton, 497 F.3d 742, 753\\n(7th Cir. 2007). And that violation must have been arbitrary\\nand irrational. Cty. of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 845\\n(1998); Idris v. City of Chicago, 552 F.3d 564, 566 (7th Cir. 2009).\\nSubstantive due process protects against only the most egre-\\ngious and outrageous government action. See Lewis, 523 U.S.\\nat 845; Belcher, 497 F.3d at 753 (7th Cir. 2007).\\n “[E]mployment-related rights are not fundamental.” Palka\\nv. Shelton, 623 F.3d 447, 453 (7th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, a\\n\\f6 No. 18-3472\\n\\npublic employee alleging wrongful termination cannot state a\\nsubstantive due process claim “unless the employee also al-\\nleges the defendants violated some other constitutional right\\nor that state remedies were inadequate.” Id. (citing Montgom-\\nery v. Stefaniak, 410 F.3d 933, 939 (7th Cir. 2005)). Thus, to state\\na claim, Campos must allege that the defendants deprived\\nhim of a state-created property interest by arbitrary and irra-\\ntional conduct and that the defendants either committed a\\nseparate constitutional violation or state law remedies are in-\\nadequate. Galdikas v. Fagan, 342 F.3d 684, 691 (7th Cir. 2003),\\nabrogated on other grounds by Spiegla v. Hull, 371 F.3d 928 (7th\\nCir. 2004).\\n Campos spends considerable time arguing that he pos-\\nsesses a property interest in continued employment. The de-\\nfendants do not deny he does, and we assume the same. The\\ndispositive question is whether Campos’s allegations satisfy\\nthe remaining elements.\\n To begin with, Campos hasn’t alleged an independent\\nconstitutional violation. He seems to contend that “[h]is prop-\\nerty interest was the other constitutional right.” But the exist-\\nence of a property right is a predicate to a due process claim.\\nHudson v. City of Chicago, 374 F.3d 554, 559 (7th Cir. 2004).\\nCampos’s alleged property interest in his employment satis-\\nfies one element of his due process claim, but it doesn’t con-\\nstitute an independent constitutional claim on its own.\\n On appeal, Campos makes no mention of the First Amend-\\nment retaliation claim which he alleged in his amended com-\\nplaint. Accordingly, he has waived any challenge to the dis-\\ntrict court’s dismissal of that claim. Puffer v. Allstate Ins. Co.,\\n675 F.3d 709, 718 (7th Cir. 2012). Campos does make several\\nopaque references to “stigma-plus claims” in his opening\\n\\fNo. 18-3472 7\\n\\nbrief. But he never explains what he means by that term, much\\nless cite any cases articulating the elements of the claim or\\nclearly identifying the facts which might support its applica-\\ntion here. 2 Campos has waived this underdeveloped argu-\\nment. Id. Accordingly, Campos has not identified any inde-\\npendent constitutional violations which might support his\\nsubstantive due process claim.\\n Campos also argues that the protracted state court pro-\\nceedings demonstrate the inadequacy of his state law reme-\\ndies. He cites to cases which establish that public employers\\nmust provide tenured employees with a timely and meaning-\\nful hearing before termination. See, e.g., Cleveland Bd. of Educ.\\nv. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 541 (1985); Hudson, 374 F.3d at 559.\\nBut these cases discuss the minimum procedural due process\\nrequirements for terminating public employees. Campos has\\nalleged substantive due process violations.\\n Campos’s allegations fall short. To begin with, his state\\ncourt remedies have, in fact, been effective. He’s twice con-\\nvinced the circuit court to vacate the Merit Board’s decision.\\nThe fact that the circuit court identified problems in both\\nMerit Board decisions doesn’t show that the Merit Board\\n\\n2 In his reply brief, Campos finally unveils the basis for this mysterious\\n“stigma-plus” claim. He seems to mean what we’ve referred to as an “oc-\\ncupational-liberty claim.” See Palka, 623 F.3d at 454 (“An occupational-lib-\\nerty claim may arise when, after an adverse employment action, a public\\nemployer stigmatizes the employee by making public comments impugn-\\ning his good name, honor, or reputation or imposes a stigma that fore-\\ncloses other employment opportunities.”). This is too little, too late. Parties\\nwaive arguments which they develop for the first time in a reply brief.\\nHarris v. Warrick Cty. Sheriff's Dep’t, 666 F.3d 444, 448 (7th Cir. 2012)\\n\\f8 No. 18-3472\\n\\nprocedures are inadequate—it demonstrates that the review\\nprocess has worked. See Palka, 623 F.3d at 453 (holding that\\nthe Merit Board disciplinary process satisfies Cook County’s\\nprocedural due process obligation).\\n Of course, the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees Cam-\\npos an opportunity to be heard regarding his termination “at\\na meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” Logan v.\\nZimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422, 437 (1982) (quoting Arm-\\nstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965)). Eventually, justice\\ndelayed is justice denied. See Schroeder v. City of Chicago, 927\\nF.2d 957, 960 (7th Cir. 1991) (“[A]t some point delay must\\nripen into deprivation, because otherwise a suit alleging dep-\\nrivation would be forever premature.”). And almost eight\\nyears have elapsed since the sheriff first suspended Campos.\\n But there is no bright-line rule for determining when pro-\\ntracted review proceedings run afoul of due process. See\\nMathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976) (explaining that\\ncourts identify due process requirements by carefully weigh-\\ning the relevant interests). And state law remedies fail to sat-\\nisfy due process only when they are “meaningless or nonex-\\nistent.” Michalowicz v. Vill. of Bedford Park, 528 F.3d 530, 535\\n(7th Cir. 2008) (rejecting a procedural due process claim\\nbrought by a terminated firefighter) (quoting Easter House v.\\nFelder, 910 F.2d 1387, 1406 (7th Cir. 1990)). We do not opine on\\nwhether the lengthy termination process satisfies Campos’s\\nprocedural due process rights (though we do note that federal\\nlawsuits often pend for several years, especially if remanded\\nto the district court). See Easter House, 910 F.2d at 1406\\n(“[A]lmost all litigation, whether conducted in a state or fed-\\neral forum, may be characterized as a lengthy and speculative\\n\\fNo. 18-3472 9\\n\\nprocess.”). But the eight-year process is certainly not so arbi-\\ntrary or outrageous as to violate substantive due process. 3\\n We offer no opinion regarding when delays in reaching a\\nfinal adjudication might offend procedural due process. We\\nmerely find that the convoluted proceedings here are evi-\\ndence that Campos has received repeated—and efficacious—\\nopportunities to challenge his termination. The district court\\nproperly dismissed Campos’s due process and conspiracy\\nclaims.\\n B. The District Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion By Dismiss-\\ning Campos’s Claims With Prejudice\\n Finally, Campos argues that the district court erred when\\nit dismissed his claims with prejudice. We review that deci-\\nsion for abuse of discretion. Haywood v. Massage Envy Fran-\\nchising, LLC, 887 F.3d 329, 335 (7th Cir. 2018). The court cer-\\ntainly did not err when it dismissed Campos’s amended com-\\nplaint with prejudice. For the reasons we’ve just articulated,\\n\\n 3 We note, briefly, that post-Taylor developments in Illinois law do not\\n\\naffect our analysis (despite Campos’s arguments to the contrary). In Lopez\\nv. Dart, the Illinois appellate court applied the de facto officer doctrine—\\nwhich confers validity on acts performed by a person acting under color\\nof title even if a later defect in his or her appointment comes to light—to\\nMerit Board decisions. 118 N.E.3d 580, 591, 595 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). Ac-\\ncordingly, only the first challenger may invalidate the agency decision.\\nThe Illinois court of appeals issued Lopez after the circuit court vacated the\\nsecond Merit Board decision in Campos’s case. The district court observed\\nthat this decision may have been erroneous (and the County has asked the\\ncircuit court for reconsideration). Naturally, Campos disagrees. He argues\\nthat de facto officers can still commit constitutional violations. That’s un-\\ndoubtedly true but ultimately irrelevant because he hasn’t stated a claim.\\nWe, of course, offer no opinion regarding the proper resolution of Cam-\\npos’s appeal before the circuit court.\\n\\f10 No. 18-3472\\n\\nCampos did not state claims upon which relief could be\\nbased, and a district court need not grant leave to amend if\\nthere doesn’t seem to be a plausible way to cure the defects.\\nGonzalez-Koeneke v. West, 791 F.3d 801, 808 (7th Cir. 2015).\\n We are slightly more concerned about the district court’s\\ndismissal of the Steptoe defendants (back in May 2018). That\\ndismissal came after Campos filed an amended complaint as\\nof right (as permitted by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure\\n15(a)(B)) but before defendants filed a motion to dismiss that\\nnew complaint. At the May 11, 2018, hearing, the district court\\nsuggested that the amended complaint wasn’t properly filed\\nbecause it hadn’t been “presented,” as required by the Local\\nRules. N.D. Ill. L.R. 5.3(b) (“Every motion or objection shall be\\naccompanied by a notice of presentment specifying the date\\nand time on which, and judge before whom, the motion or\\nobjection is to be presented.”).\\n Local Rule 5.3(b) applies only to motions or objections,\\nand an amended complaint filed as of right is neither. The dis-\\ntrict court thus dismissed the Steptoe defendants sua sponte\\nand without considering the facts alleged against them in the\\noperative complaint.\\n If Campos could conceivably state a claim against the\\nSteptoe attorneys, we would remand. But § 1983 plaintiffs can\\nsue private attorneys for constitutional violations only if they\\nwere “engaged in a conspiracy with state officials to deprive\\nanother of federal rights.” Tower v. Glover, 467 U.S. 914, 920\\n(1984). And given Campos’s failure to state any underlying\\nconstitutional claims, he hasn’t alleged any conspiracy be-\\ntween the Steptoe defendants and county defendants. Ac-\\ncordingly, remand would be futile. See Shockley v. Jones, 823\\nF.2d 1068, 1073 (7th Cir. 1987) (explaining that the court\\n\\fNo. 18-3472 11\\n\\nimproperly dismissed the complaint sua sponte but finding\\nthat remand would be futile because his proposed amended\\ncomplaint did not state a claim either); Baker v. Dir., U.S. Pa-\\nrole Comm’n, 916 F.2d 725, 726 (D.C. Cir. 1990).\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n The Cook County Sheriff referred Campos for termination\\nin 2011, and the proceedings are still pending to this day. But\\nthe lengthy review process demonstrates Campos’s success in\\nattacking the Merit Board’s decisions, not the inadequacy of\\nthe state remedies. The doctrine of substantive due process\\ndoes not guarantee expeditious review; it merely protects fun-\\ndamental rights from government deprivation by arbitrary\\nand outrageous conduct. He doesn’t allege any such conduct\\nhere. AFFIRMED.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4422996/\", \"author_raw\": \"Michael Stephen Kanne\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"KANNE"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"SYKES"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"BRENNAN"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"KANNE\": \", Circuit\", \"SYKES\": \", Circuit\", \"BRENNAN\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645743/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":8,"string":"8"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Michael Campos v. Cook County\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-08-05\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-3472\nMICHAEL O. CAMPOS,\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\n v.\n\nCOOK COUNTY, et al.,\n Defendants-Appellees.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\n No. 18-cv-2305 — Charles R. Norgle, Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED MAY 29, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 5, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before KANNE, SYKES, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\n KANNE, Circuit Judge. After Michael Campos’s August\n2011 arrest for driving under the influence, his employer—the\nCook County Sheriff’s Office—began termination proceed-\nings. The Merit Board has voted to terminate Campos’s em-\nployment on two occasions. But both times the Cook County\nCircuit Court vacated the decision. And, to this day, the ter-\nmination proceedings are ongoing. Instead of waiting for\ntheir completion, Campos filed this federal law suit alleging,\n\f2 No. 18-3472\n\namong other things, that the protracted proceedings have vi-\nolated his substantive due process rights. Because Campos\nhas not met the high standard for stating a substantive due\nprocess claim, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of his\nclaims.\n I. BACKGROUND\n In 1997, Michael Campos began working for the Cook\nCounty Sheriff’s Office as a correctional officer. In August\n2011, he was arrested for driving under the influence, striking\na vehicle, and leaving the scene of an accident. Campos self-\nreported the incident, and the sheriff suspended him without\npay on November 29, 2011, and referred him for termination.\nBy law, the Cook County Sheriff’s Merit Board has exclusive\nauthority to terminate Sheriff’s Office employees. 55 Ill.\nComp. Stat. 5/3-7012.\n While the Merit Board proceedings were ongoing, the\nCook County Circuit Court granted Campos’s motion to sup-\npress and quashed his arrest. On October 15, 2015, the Merit\nBoard voted to terminate Campos for violating state law. He\npetitioned the circuit court for review approximately one year\nlater. On January 18, 2017, the circuit court granted Campos’s\npetition, vacated the Merit Board’s decision as too vague to\nallow for judicial review, and remanded for a second attempt.\n In April 2017, the Merit Board once again voted to termi-\nnate Campos. He sought judicial review. And on March 9,\n2018, the circuit court vacated and remanded a second time.\nBut this time, the court vacated the Merit Board’s decision not\nbecause of some defect in the reasoning but because of a de-\nfect in the Merit Board’s composition.\n\fNo. 18-3472 3\n\n The circuit court relied upon a developing line of cases in-\nvolving interim appointments to the Merit Board. In Taylor v.\nDart, the Illinois Appellate Court found that the Merit Board\nAct does not permit the sheriff to appoint Merit Board mem-\nbers to terms of fewer than six years. 64 N.E.3d 123, 130 (Il.\nApp. Ct. 2016) (citing 55 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/3–7002). Because\none member of the Merit Board was serving an interim term\nwhen the Board voted to terminate the plaintiff, the Taylor\ncourt held that the decision was void. Id. at 132. The circuit\ncourt found that the reasoning in Taylor applied with equal\nforce to Campos. When the Merit Board voted to terminate\nhim, one member was serving an interim term. 1\n At this point, it had been almost seven years since the sher-\niff suspended Campos without pay. Rather than wait for a\nthird Merit Board decision, he filed suit in federal court. Cam-\npos’s initial complaint—filed on March 29, 2018—named\neighteen defendants and advanced five claims. Besides suing\nCook County, the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office, the\nsheriff, the Merit Board, and the Board’s members, he also\nsued the law firm Steptoe and Johnson, LLP, and three of its\nattorneys (who represented the county in the circuit court\nproceedings). On May 2, 2018, the Steptoe defendants filed a\nmotion to dismiss the claims against them. The district court\nscheduled a hearing on the motion for May 11, 2018.\n On May 10, Campos filed an amended complaint in which\nhe renewed his claims against all defendants (except the Cook\n\n\n 1 After Taylor, the Illinois General Assembly amended the Merit Board\n\nAct to allow the sheriff to make interim appointments. 55 Ill. Comp. Stat.\n5/3-7002 (as amended effective Dec. 8, 2017). The sheriff has now reconsti-\ntuted the Board, correcting the problem identified in Taylor.\n\f4 No. 18-3472\n\nCounty State’s Attorney’s Office) and added a sixth claim (for\nFirst Amendment retaliation). The district court held the al-\nready-scheduled hearing the next day. When plaintiff’s coun-\nsel advised the court that he had filed an amended complaint\nthe day before, the court noted that it had not granted leave\nto file an amended complaint. The court referred to the Local\nRules for the Northern District of Illinois and concluded that\nthe original complaint remained the operative document. See\nN.D. Ill. L.R. 5.3(b) (“Every motion or objection shall be ac-\ncompanied by a notice of presentment specifying the date and\ntime on which, and judge before whom, the motion or objec-\ntion is to be presented.”). After that finding, the court dis-\nmissed the Steptoe defendants with prejudice.\n Several months later, the remaining defendants filed a mo-\ntion to dismiss the amended complaint. On November 5, 2018,\nthe court granted that motion and dismissed the amended\ncomplaint with prejudice. Campos appealed.\n II. ANALYSIS\n We review the dismissal of a complaint for failure to state\na claim de novo. Kanter v. Barr, 919 F.3d 437, 440 (7th Cir. 2019).\nCampos’s amended complaint advances two substantive due\nprocess claims, three conspiracy claims, and one First Amend-\nment retaliation claim. Oddly, Campos does not bring a pro-\ncedural due process claim, focusing instead on substantive\ndue process. He does suggest that his conspiracy claims might\nbe either substantive or procedural, but a plaintiff cannot\nbring a § 1983 claim for conspiracy to deny a civil right unless\nthe plaintiff states an underlying claim for denial of a right.\nArcher v. Chisholm, 870 F.3d 603, 620 (7th Cir. 2017). Section\n1983 conspiracy claims are derivative; they cannot stand\nalone. In other words, because he has alleged no underlying\n\fNo. 18-3472 5\n\nprocedural due process violation, his conspiracy claims can-\nnot be procedural in nature.\n Accordingly, we limit our analysis to whether Campos has\nstated substantive due process claims. For the reasons that fol-\nlow, he has not. And, although Campos spends considerable\ntime discussing recent decisions by the Illinois appellate\ncourts which limit Taylor’s impact, we find this line of argu-\nment to be a red herring. Because Campos did not state cog-\nnizable claims, the district court properly dismissed with prej-\nudice.\n A. Campos Did Not State Substantive Due Process Claims\n “[T]he scope of substantive due process is very limited.”\nTun v. Whitticker, 398 F.3d 899, 902 (7th Cir. 2005) (citing Wash-\nington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997)). And courts should\nbe “reluctant to expand the concept of substantive due pro-\ncess because guideposts for responsible decisionmaking in\nthis unchartered area are scarce and open-ended.” Collins v.\nCity of Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 125 (1992). Given its slip-\npery nature, the requirements for stating a substantive due\nprocess claim are similarly vague. A plaintiff must allege that\nthe government violated a fundamental right or liberty.\nGlucksberg, 521 U.S. at 720; Belcher v. Norton, 497 F.3d 742, 753\n(7th Cir. 2007). And that violation must have been arbitrary\nand irrational. Cty. of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 845\n(1998); Idris v. City of Chicago, 552 F.3d 564, 566 (7th Cir. 2009).\nSubstantive due process protects against only the most egre-\ngious and outrageous government action. See Lewis, 523 U.S.\nat 845; Belcher, 497 F.3d at 753 (7th Cir. 2007).\n “[E]mployment-related rights are not fundamental.” Palka\nv. Shelton, 623 F.3d 447, 453 (7th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, a\n\f6 No. 18-3472\n\npublic employee alleging wrongful termination cannot state a\nsubstantive due process claim “unless the employee also al-\nleges the defendants violated some other constitutional right\nor that state remedies were inadequate.” Id. (citing Montgom-\nery v. Stefaniak, 410 F.3d 933, 939 (7th Cir. 2005)). Thus, to state\na claim, Campos must allege that the defendants deprived\nhim of a state-created property interest by arbitrary and irra-\ntional conduct and that the defendants either committed a\nseparate constitutional violation or state law remedies are in-\nadequate. Galdikas v. Fagan, 342 F.3d 684, 691 (7th Cir. 2003),\nabrogated on other grounds by Spiegla v. Hull, 371 F.3d 928 (7th\nCir. 2004).\n Campos spends considerable time arguing that he pos-\nsesses a property interest in continued employment. The de-\nfendants do not deny he does, and we assume the same. The\ndispositive question is whether Campos’s allegations satisfy\nthe remaining elements.\n To begin with, Campos hasn’t alleged an independent\nconstitutional violation. He seems to contend that “[h]is prop-\nerty interest was the other constitutional right.” But the exist-\nence of a property right is a predicate to a due process claim.\nHudson v. City of Chicago, 374 F.3d 554, 559 (7th Cir. 2004).\nCampos’s alleged property interest in his employment satis-\nfies one element of his due process claim, but it doesn’t con-\nstitute an independent constitutional claim on its own.\n On appeal, Campos makes no mention of the First Amend-\nment retaliation claim which he alleged in his amended com-\nplaint. Accordingly, he has waived any challenge to the dis-\ntrict court’s dismissal of that claim. Puffer v. Allstate Ins. Co.,\n675 F.3d 709, 718 (7th Cir. 2012). Campos does make several\nopaque references to “stigma-plus claims” in his opening\n\fNo. 18-3472 7\n\nbrief. But he never explains what he means by that term, much\nless cite any cases articulating the elements of the claim or\nclearly identifying the facts which might support its applica-\ntion here. 2 Campos has waived this underdeveloped argu-\nment. Id. Accordingly, Campos has not identified any inde-\npendent constitutional violations which might support his\nsubstantive due process claim.\n Campos also argues that the protracted state court pro-\nceedings demonstrate the inadequacy of his state law reme-\ndies. He cites to cases which establish that public employers\nmust provide tenured employees with a timely and meaning-\nful hearing before termination. See, e.g., Cleveland Bd. of Educ.\nv. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 541 (1985); Hudson, 374 F.3d at 559.\nBut these cases discuss the minimum procedural due process\nrequirements for terminating public employees. Campos has\nalleged substantive due process violations.\n Campos’s allegations fall short. To begin with, his state\ncourt remedies have, in fact, been effective. He’s twice con-\nvinced the circuit court to vacate the Merit Board’s decision.\nThe fact that the circuit court identified problems in both\nMerit Board decisions doesn’t show that the Merit Board\n\n2 In his reply brief, Campos finally unveils the basis for this mysterious\n“stigma-plus” claim. He seems to mean what we’ve referred to as an “oc-\ncupational-liberty claim.” See Palka, 623 F.3d at 454 (“An occupational-lib-\nerty claim may arise when, after an adverse employment action, a public\nemployer stigmatizes the employee by making public comments impugn-\ning his good name, honor, or reputation or imposes a stigma that fore-\ncloses other employment opportunities.”). This is too little, too late. Parties\nwaive arguments which they develop for the first time in a reply brief.\nHarris v. Warrick Cty. Sheriff's Dep’t, 666 F.3d 444, 448 (7th Cir. 2012)\n\f8 No. 18-3472\n\nprocedures are inadequate—it demonstrates that the review\nprocess has worked. See Palka, 623 F.3d at 453 (holding that\nthe Merit Board disciplinary process satisfies Cook County’s\nprocedural due process obligation).\n Of course, the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees Cam-\npos an opportunity to be heard regarding his termination “at\na meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” Logan v.\nZimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422, 437 (1982) (quoting Arm-\nstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965)). Eventually, justice\ndelayed is justice denied. See Schroeder v. City of Chicago, 927\nF.2d 957, 960 (7th Cir. 1991) (“[A]t some point delay must\nripen into deprivation, because otherwise a suit alleging dep-\nrivation would be forever premature.”). And almost eight\nyears have elapsed since the sheriff first suspended Campos.\n But there is no bright-line rule for determining when pro-\ntracted review proceedings run afoul of due process. See\nMathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976) (explaining that\ncourts identify due process requirements by carefully weigh-\ning the relevant interests). And state law remedies fail to sat-\nisfy due process only when they are “meaningless or nonex-\nistent.” Michalowicz v. Vill. of Bedford Park, 528 F.3d 530, 535\n(7th Cir. 2008) (rejecting a procedural due process claim\nbrought by a terminated firefighter) (quoting Easter House v.\nFelder, 910 F.2d 1387, 1406 (7th Cir. 1990)). We do not opine on\nwhether the lengthy termination process satisfies Campos’s\nprocedural due process rights (though we do note that federal\nlawsuits often pend for several years, especially if remanded\nto the district court). See Easter House, 910 F.2d at 1406\n(“[A]lmost all litigation, whether conducted in a state or fed-\neral forum, may be characterized as a lengthy and speculative\n\fNo. 18-3472 9\n\nprocess.”). But the eight-year process is certainly not so arbi-\ntrary or outrageous as to violate substantive due process. 3\n We offer no opinion regarding when delays in reaching a\nfinal adjudication might offend procedural due process. We\nmerely find that the convoluted proceedings here are evi-\ndence that Campos has received repeated—and efficacious—\nopportunities to challenge his termination. The district court\nproperly dismissed Campos’s due process and conspiracy\nclaims.\n B. The District Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion By Dismiss-\ning Campos’s Claims With Prejudice\n Finally, Campos argues that the district court erred when\nit dismissed his claims with prejudice. We review that deci-\nsion for abuse of discretion. Haywood v. Massage Envy Fran-\nchising, LLC, 887 F.3d 329, 335 (7th Cir. 2018). The court cer-\ntainly did not err when it dismissed Campos’s amended com-\nplaint with prejudice. For the reasons we’ve just articulated,\n\n 3 We note, briefly, that post-Taylor developments in Illinois law do not\n\naffect our analysis (despite Campos’s arguments to the contrary). In Lopez\nv. Dart, the Illinois appellate court applied the de facto officer doctrine—\nwhich confers validity on acts performed by a person acting under color\nof title even if a later defect in his or her appointment comes to light—to\nMerit Board decisions. 118 N.E.3d 580, 591, 595 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). Ac-\ncordingly, only the first challenger may invalidate the agency decision.\nThe Illinois court of appeals issued Lopez after the circuit court vacated the\nsecond Merit Board decision in Campos’s case. The district court observed\nthat this decision may have been erroneous (and the County has asked the\ncircuit court for reconsideration). Naturally, Campos disagrees. He argues\nthat de facto officers can still commit constitutional violations. That’s un-\ndoubtedly true but ultimately irrelevant because he hasn’t stated a claim.\nWe, of course, offer no opinion regarding the proper resolution of Cam-\npos’s appeal before the circuit court.\n\f10 No. 18-3472\n\nCampos did not state claims upon which relief could be\nbased, and a district court need not grant leave to amend if\nthere doesn’t seem to be a plausible way to cure the defects.\nGonzalez-Koeneke v. West, 791 F.3d 801, 808 (7th Cir. 2015).\n We are slightly more concerned about the district court’s\ndismissal of the Steptoe defendants (back in May 2018). That\ndismissal came after Campos filed an amended complaint as\nof right (as permitted by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure\n15(a)(B)) but before defendants filed a motion to dismiss that\nnew complaint. At the May 11, 2018, hearing, the district court\nsuggested that the amended complaint wasn’t properly filed\nbecause it hadn’t been “presented,” as required by the Local\nRules. N.D. Ill. L.R. 5.3(b) (“Every motion or objection shall be\naccompanied by a notice of presentment specifying the date\nand time on which, and judge before whom, the motion or\nobjection is to be presented.”).\n Local Rule 5.3(b) applies only to motions or objections,\nand an amended complaint filed as of right is neither. The dis-\ntrict court thus dismissed the Steptoe defendants sua sponte\nand without considering the facts alleged against them in the\noperative complaint.\n If Campos could conceivably state a claim against the\nSteptoe attorneys, we would remand. But § 1983 plaintiffs can\nsue private attorneys for constitutional violations only if they\nwere “engaged in a conspiracy with state officials to deprive\nanother of federal rights.” Tower v. Glover, 467 U.S. 914, 920\n(1984). And given Campos’s failure to state any underlying\nconstitutional claims, he hasn’t alleged any conspiracy be-\ntween the Steptoe defendants and county defendants. Ac-\ncordingly, remand would be futile. See Shockley v. Jones, 823\nF.2d 1068, 1073 (7th Cir. 1987) (explaining that the court\n\fNo. 18-3472 11\n\nimproperly dismissed the complaint sua sponte but finding\nthat remand would be futile because his proposed amended\ncomplaint did not state a claim either); Baker v. Dir., U.S. Pa-\nrole Comm’n, 916 F.2d 725, 726 (D.C. Cir. 1990).\n III. CONCLUSION\n The Cook County Sheriff referred Campos for termination\nin 2011, and the proceedings are still pending to this day. But\nthe lengthy review process demonstrates Campos’s success in\nattacking the Merit Board’s decisions, not the inadequacy of\nthe state remedies. The doctrine of substantive due process\ndoes not guarantee expeditious review; it merely protects fun-\ndamental rights from government deprivation by arbitrary\nand outrageous conduct. He doesn’t allege any such conduct\nhere. AFFIRMED.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Michael Campos v. Cook County\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-08-05\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-3472\\nMICHAEL O. CAMPOS,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n v.\\n\\nCOOK COUNTY, et al.,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 18-cv-2305 — Charles R. Norgle, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED MAY 29, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 5, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before KANNE, SYKES, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\\n KANNE, Circuit Judge. After Michael Campos’s August\\n2011 arrest for driving under the influence, his employer—the\\nCook County Sheriff’s Office—began termination proceed-\\nings. The Merit Board has voted to terminate Campos’s em-\\nployment on two occasions. But both times the Cook County\\nCircuit Court vacated the decision. And, to this day, the ter-\\nmination proceedings are ongoing. Instead of waiting for\\ntheir completion, Campos filed this federal law suit alleging,\\n\\f2 No. 18-3472\\n\\namong other things, that the protracted proceedings have vi-\\nolated his substantive due process rights. Because Campos\\nhas not met the high standard for stating a substantive due\\nprocess claim, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of his\\nclaims.\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n In 1997, Michael Campos began working for the Cook\\nCounty Sheriff’s Office as a correctional officer. In August\\n2011, he was arrested for driving under the influence, striking\\na vehicle, and leaving the scene of an accident. Campos self-\\nreported the incident, and the sheriff suspended him without\\npay on November 29, 2011, and referred him for termination.\\nBy law, the Cook County Sheriff’s Merit Board has exclusive\\nauthority to terminate Sheriff’s Office employees. 55 Ill.\\nComp. Stat. 5/3-7012.\\n While the Merit Board proceedings were ongoing, the\\nCook County Circuit Court granted Campos’s motion to sup-\\npress and quashed his arrest. On October 15, 2015, the Merit\\nBoard voted to terminate Campos for violating state law. He\\npetitioned the circuit court for review approximately one year\\nlater. On January 18, 2017, the circuit court granted Campos’s\\npetition, vacated the Merit Board’s decision as too vague to\\nallow for judicial review, and remanded for a second attempt.\\n In April 2017, the Merit Board once again voted to termi-\\nnate Campos. He sought judicial review. And on March 9,\\n2018, the circuit court vacated and remanded a second time.\\nBut this time, the court vacated the Merit Board’s decision not\\nbecause of some defect in the reasoning but because of a de-\\nfect in the Merit Board’s composition.\\n\\fNo. 18-3472 3\\n\\n The circuit court relied upon a developing line of cases in-\\nvolving interim appointments to the Merit Board. In Taylor v.\\nDart, the Illinois Appellate Court found that the Merit Board\\nAct does not permit the sheriff to appoint Merit Board mem-\\nbers to terms of fewer than six years. 64 N.E.3d 123, 130 (Il.\\nApp. Ct. 2016) (citing 55 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/3–7002). Because\\none member of the Merit Board was serving an interim term\\nwhen the Board voted to terminate the plaintiff, the Taylor\\ncourt held that the decision was void. Id. at 132. The circuit\\ncourt found that the reasoning in Taylor applied with equal\\nforce to Campos. When the Merit Board voted to terminate\\nhim, one member was serving an interim term. 1\\n At this point, it had been almost seven years since the sher-\\niff suspended Campos without pay. Rather than wait for a\\nthird Merit Board decision, he filed suit in federal court. Cam-\\npos’s initial complaint—filed on March 29, 2018—named\\neighteen defendants and advanced five claims. Besides suing\\nCook County, the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office, the\\nsheriff, the Merit Board, and the Board’s members, he also\\nsued the law firm Steptoe and Johnson, LLP, and three of its\\nattorneys (who represented the county in the circuit court\\nproceedings). On May 2, 2018, the Steptoe defendants filed a\\nmotion to dismiss the claims against them. The district court\\nscheduled a hearing on the motion for May 11, 2018.\\n On May 10, Campos filed an amended complaint in which\\nhe renewed his claims against all defendants (except the Cook\\n\\n\\n 1 After Taylor, the Illinois General Assembly amended the Merit Board\\n\\nAct to allow the sheriff to make interim appointments. 55 Ill. Comp. Stat.\\n5/3-7002 (as amended effective Dec. 8, 2017). The sheriff has now reconsti-\\ntuted the Board, correcting the problem identified in Taylor.\\n\\f4 No. 18-3472\\n\\nCounty State’s Attorney’s Office) and added a sixth claim (for\\nFirst Amendment retaliation). The district court held the al-\\nready-scheduled hearing the next day. When plaintiff’s coun-\\nsel advised the court that he had filed an amended complaint\\nthe day before, the court noted that it had not granted leave\\nto file an amended complaint. The court referred to the Local\\nRules for the Northern District of Illinois and concluded that\\nthe original complaint remained the operative document. See\\nN.D. Ill. L.R. 5.3(b) (“Every motion or objection shall be ac-\\ncompanied by a notice of presentment specifying the date and\\ntime on which, and judge before whom, the motion or objec-\\ntion is to be presented.”). After that finding, the court dis-\\nmissed the Steptoe defendants with prejudice.\\n Several months later, the remaining defendants filed a mo-\\ntion to dismiss the amended complaint. On November 5, 2018,\\nthe court granted that motion and dismissed the amended\\ncomplaint with prejudice. Campos appealed.\\n II. ANALYSIS\\n We review the dismissal of a complaint for failure to state\\na claim de novo. Kanter v. Barr, 919 F.3d 437, 440 (7th Cir. 2019).\\nCampos’s amended complaint advances two substantive due\\nprocess claims, three conspiracy claims, and one First Amend-\\nment retaliation claim. Oddly, Campos does not bring a pro-\\ncedural due process claim, focusing instead on substantive\\ndue process. He does suggest that his conspiracy claims might\\nbe either substantive or procedural, but a plaintiff cannot\\nbring a § 1983 claim for conspiracy to deny a civil right unless\\nthe plaintiff states an underlying claim for denial of a right.\\nArcher v. Chisholm, 870 F.3d 603, 620 (7th Cir. 2017). Section\\n1983 conspiracy claims are derivative; they cannot stand\\nalone. In other words, because he has alleged no underlying\\n\\fNo. 18-3472 5\\n\\nprocedural due process violation, his conspiracy claims can-\\nnot be procedural in nature.\\n Accordingly, we limit our analysis to whether Campos has\\nstated substantive due process claims. For the reasons that fol-\\nlow, he has not. And, although Campos spends considerable\\ntime discussing recent decisions by the Illinois appellate\\ncourts which limit Taylor’s impact, we find this line of argu-\\nment to be a red herring. Because Campos did not state cog-\\nnizable claims, the district court properly dismissed with prej-\\nudice.\\n A. Campos Did Not State Substantive Due Process Claims\\n “[T]he scope of substantive due process is very limited.”\\nTun v. Whitticker, 398 F.3d 899, 902 (7th Cir. 2005) (citing Wash-\\nington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997)). And courts should\\nbe “reluctant to expand the concept of substantive due pro-\\ncess because guideposts for responsible decisionmaking in\\nthis unchartered area are scarce and open-ended.” Collins v.\\nCity of Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 125 (1992). Given its slip-\\npery nature, the requirements for stating a substantive due\\nprocess claim are similarly vague. A plaintiff must allege that\\nthe government violated a fundamental right or liberty.\\nGlucksberg, 521 U.S. at 720; Belcher v. Norton, 497 F.3d 742, 753\\n(7th Cir. 2007). And that violation must have been arbitrary\\nand irrational. Cty. of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 845\\n(1998); Idris v. City of Chicago, 552 F.3d 564, 566 (7th Cir. 2009).\\nSubstantive due process protects against only the most egre-\\ngious and outrageous government action. See Lewis, 523 U.S.\\nat 845; Belcher, 497 F.3d at 753 (7th Cir. 2007).\\n “[E]mployment-related rights are not fundamental.” Palka\\nv. Shelton, 623 F.3d 447, 453 (7th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, a\\n\\f6 No. 18-3472\\n\\npublic employee alleging wrongful termination cannot state a\\nsubstantive due process claim “unless the employee also al-\\nleges the defendants violated some other constitutional right\\nor that state remedies were inadequate.” Id. (citing Montgom-\\nery v. Stefaniak, 410 F.3d 933, 939 (7th Cir. 2005)). Thus, to state\\na claim, Campos must allege that the defendants deprived\\nhim of a state-created property interest by arbitrary and irra-\\ntional conduct and that the defendants either committed a\\nseparate constitutional violation or state law remedies are in-\\nadequate. Galdikas v. Fagan, 342 F.3d 684, 691 (7th Cir. 2003),\\nabrogated on other grounds by Spiegla v. Hull, 371 F.3d 928 (7th\\nCir. 2004).\\n Campos spends considerable time arguing that he pos-\\nsesses a property interest in continued employment. The de-\\nfendants do not deny he does, and we assume the same. The\\ndispositive question is whether Campos’s allegations satisfy\\nthe remaining elements.\\n To begin with, Campos hasn’t alleged an independent\\nconstitutional violation. He seems to contend that “[h]is prop-\\nerty interest was the other constitutional right.” But the exist-\\nence of a property right is a predicate to a due process claim.\\nHudson v. City of Chicago, 374 F.3d 554, 559 (7th Cir. 2004).\\nCampos’s alleged property interest in his employment satis-\\nfies one element of his due process claim, but it doesn’t con-\\nstitute an independent constitutional claim on its own.\\n On appeal, Campos makes no mention of the First Amend-\\nment retaliation claim which he alleged in his amended com-\\nplaint. Accordingly, he has waived any challenge to the dis-\\ntrict court’s dismissal of that claim. Puffer v. Allstate Ins. Co.,\\n675 F.3d 709, 718 (7th Cir. 2012). Campos does make several\\nopaque references to “stigma-plus claims” in his opening\\n\\fNo. 18-3472 7\\n\\nbrief. But he never explains what he means by that term, much\\nless cite any cases articulating the elements of the claim or\\nclearly identifying the facts which might support its applica-\\ntion here. 2 Campos has waived this underdeveloped argu-\\nment. Id. Accordingly, Campos has not identified any inde-\\npendent constitutional violations which might support his\\nsubstantive due process claim.\\n Campos also argues that the protracted state court pro-\\nceedings demonstrate the inadequacy of his state law reme-\\ndies. He cites to cases which establish that public employers\\nmust provide tenured employees with a timely and meaning-\\nful hearing before termination. See, e.g., Cleveland Bd. of Educ.\\nv. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 541 (1985); Hudson, 374 F.3d at 559.\\nBut these cases discuss the minimum procedural due process\\nrequirements for terminating public employees. Campos has\\nalleged substantive due process violations.\\n Campos’s allegations fall short. To begin with, his state\\ncourt remedies have, in fact, been effective. He’s twice con-\\nvinced the circuit court to vacate the Merit Board’s decision.\\nThe fact that the circuit court identified problems in both\\nMerit Board decisions doesn’t show that the Merit Board\\n\\n2 In his reply brief, Campos finally unveils the basis for this mysterious\\n“stigma-plus” claim. He seems to mean what we’ve referred to as an “oc-\\ncupational-liberty claim.” See Palka, 623 F.3d at 454 (“An occupational-lib-\\nerty claim may arise when, after an adverse employment action, a public\\nemployer stigmatizes the employee by making public comments impugn-\\ning his good name, honor, or reputation or imposes a stigma that fore-\\ncloses other employment opportunities.”). This is too little, too late. Parties\\nwaive arguments which they develop for the first time in a reply brief.\\nHarris v. Warrick Cty. Sheriff's Dep’t, 666 F.3d 444, 448 (7th Cir. 2012)\\n\\f8 No. 18-3472\\n\\nprocedures are inadequate—it demonstrates that the review\\nprocess has worked. See Palka, 623 F.3d at 453 (holding that\\nthe Merit Board disciplinary process satisfies Cook County’s\\nprocedural due process obligation).\\n Of course, the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees Cam-\\npos an opportunity to be heard regarding his termination “at\\na meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” Logan v.\\nZimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422, 437 (1982) (quoting Arm-\\nstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965)). Eventually, justice\\ndelayed is justice denied. See Schroeder v. City of Chicago, 927\\nF.2d 957, 960 (7th Cir. 1991) (“[A]t some point delay must\\nripen into deprivation, because otherwise a suit alleging dep-\\nrivation would be forever premature.”). And almost eight\\nyears have elapsed since the sheriff first suspended Campos.\\n But there is no bright-line rule for determining when pro-\\ntracted review proceedings run afoul of due process. See\\nMathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976) (explaining that\\ncourts identify due process requirements by carefully weigh-\\ning the relevant interests). And state law remedies fail to sat-\\nisfy due process only when they are “meaningless or nonex-\\nistent.” Michalowicz v. Vill. of Bedford Park, 528 F.3d 530, 535\\n(7th Cir. 2008) (rejecting a procedural due process claim\\nbrought by a terminated firefighter) (quoting Easter House v.\\nFelder, 910 F.2d 1387, 1406 (7th Cir. 1990)). We do not opine on\\nwhether the lengthy termination process satisfies Campos’s\\nprocedural due process rights (though we do note that federal\\nlawsuits often pend for several years, especially if remanded\\nto the district court). See Easter House, 910 F.2d at 1406\\n(“[A]lmost all litigation, whether conducted in a state or fed-\\neral forum, may be characterized as a lengthy and speculative\\n\\fNo. 18-3472 9\\n\\nprocess.”). But the eight-year process is certainly not so arbi-\\ntrary or outrageous as to violate substantive due process. 3\\n We offer no opinion regarding when delays in reaching a\\nfinal adjudication might offend procedural due process. We\\nmerely find that the convoluted proceedings here are evi-\\ndence that Campos has received repeated—and efficacious—\\nopportunities to challenge his termination. The district court\\nproperly dismissed Campos’s due process and conspiracy\\nclaims.\\n B. The District Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion By Dismiss-\\ning Campos’s Claims With Prejudice\\n Finally, Campos argues that the district court erred when\\nit dismissed his claims with prejudice. We review that deci-\\nsion for abuse of discretion. Haywood v. Massage Envy Fran-\\nchising, LLC, 887 F.3d 329, 335 (7th Cir. 2018). The court cer-\\ntainly did not err when it dismissed Campos’s amended com-\\nplaint with prejudice. For the reasons we’ve just articulated,\\n\\n 3 We note, briefly, that post-Taylor developments in Illinois law do not\\n\\naffect our analysis (despite Campos’s arguments to the contrary). In Lopez\\nv. Dart, the Illinois appellate court applied the de facto officer doctrine—\\nwhich confers validity on acts performed by a person acting under color\\nof title even if a later defect in his or her appointment comes to light—to\\nMerit Board decisions. 118 N.E.3d 580, 591, 595 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). Ac-\\ncordingly, only the first challenger may invalidate the agency decision.\\nThe Illinois court of appeals issued Lopez after the circuit court vacated the\\nsecond Merit Board decision in Campos’s case. The district court observed\\nthat this decision may have been erroneous (and the County has asked the\\ncircuit court for reconsideration). Naturally, Campos disagrees. He argues\\nthat de facto officers can still commit constitutional violations. That’s un-\\ndoubtedly true but ultimately irrelevant because he hasn’t stated a claim.\\nWe, of course, offer no opinion regarding the proper resolution of Cam-\\npos’s appeal before the circuit court.\\n\\f10 No. 18-3472\\n\\nCampos did not state claims upon which relief could be\\nbased, and a district court need not grant leave to amend if\\nthere doesn’t seem to be a plausible way to cure the defects.\\nGonzalez-Koeneke v. West, 791 F.3d 801, 808 (7th Cir. 2015).\\n We are slightly more concerned about the district court’s\\ndismissal of the Steptoe defendants (back in May 2018). That\\ndismissal came after Campos filed an amended complaint as\\nof right (as permitted by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure\\n15(a)(B)) but before defendants filed a motion to dismiss that\\nnew complaint. At the May 11, 2018, hearing, the district court\\nsuggested that the amended complaint wasn’t properly filed\\nbecause it hadn’t been “presented,” as required by the Local\\nRules. N.D. Ill. L.R. 5.3(b) (“Every motion or objection shall be\\naccompanied by a notice of presentment specifying the date\\nand time on which, and judge before whom, the motion or\\nobjection is to be presented.”).\\n Local Rule 5.3(b) applies only to motions or objections,\\nand an amended complaint filed as of right is neither. The dis-\\ntrict court thus dismissed the Steptoe defendants sua sponte\\nand without considering the facts alleged against them in the\\noperative complaint.\\n If Campos could conceivably state a claim against the\\nSteptoe attorneys, we would remand. But § 1983 plaintiffs can\\nsue private attorneys for constitutional violations only if they\\nwere “engaged in a conspiracy with state officials to deprive\\nanother of federal rights.” Tower v. Glover, 467 U.S. 914, 920\\n(1984). And given Campos’s failure to state any underlying\\nconstitutional claims, he hasn’t alleged any conspiracy be-\\ntween the Steptoe defendants and county defendants. Ac-\\ncordingly, remand would be futile. See Shockley v. Jones, 823\\nF.2d 1068, 1073 (7th Cir. 1987) (explaining that the court\\n\\fNo. 18-3472 11\\n\\nimproperly dismissed the complaint sua sponte but finding\\nthat remand would be futile because his proposed amended\\ncomplaint did not state a claim either); Baker v. Dir., U.S. Pa-\\nrole Comm’n, 916 F.2d 725, 726 (D.C. Cir. 1990).\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n The Cook County Sheriff referred Campos for termination\\nin 2011, and the proceedings are still pending to this day. But\\nthe lengthy review process demonstrates Campos’s success in\\nattacking the Merit Board’s decisions, not the inadequacy of\\nthe state remedies. The doctrine of substantive due process\\ndoes not guarantee expeditious review; it merely protects fun-\\ndamental rights from government deprivation by arbitrary\\nand outrageous conduct. He doesn’t allege any such conduct\\nhere. AFFIRMED.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3790,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4645744,"string":"4,645,744"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Laverne Williams v. Scott Jaffe"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-08-05"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-2726"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before BAUER, HAMILTON, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"William Joseph Bauer\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\nNo. 18-2726\\n\\nIN RE: SCOTT N. JAFFE,\\n Debtor-Appellee,\\nAPPEAL OF: LAVERNE WILLIAMS.\\n\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 17 C 04662 — John J. Tharp, Jr., Judge.\\n\\n\\n\\n ARGUED FEBRUARY 7, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 5, 2019\\n\\n\\n Before BAUER, HAMILTON, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\\n BAUER, Circuit Judge. Section 522(b)(1) of the United States\\nBankruptcy Code states that a “debtor may exempt from\\nproperty of the [bankruptcy] estate the property listed in either\\nparagraph (2) or, in the alternative paragraph (3).” At issue in\\nthis case is paragraph (3) subsection (B), which states, in full,\\nthat:\\n Property listed in this paragraph is any interest\\n in property which the debtor had, immediately\\n before the commencement of the case, an inter-\\n est as a tenant by the entirety or joint tenant to\\n\\f2 No. 18-2726\\n\\n the extent that such interest as a tenant by the\\n entirety or joint tenant is exempt from process\\n under applicable nonbankruptcy law.\\n11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(3)(B). We must determine to what extent\\ncontingent future interests created by Illinois law are exempt\\nunder this section. The most natural reading of the statute\\nexempts any interest held by an individual as a tenant by the\\nentirety to the extent that state law exempts that particular\\ninterest. The district court found that any interest held by the\\ndebtor is exempt to the extent that state law exempted the\\nentirety interest. We reverse the district court and hold that the\\ndebtor’s property cannot be excluded from the bankruptcy\\nestate.\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n In 1998, Laverne Williams wanted to file a medical malprac-\\ntice lawsuit and hired Scott Jaffe to be her attorney. The statute\\nof limitations expired before Jaffe filed a complaint and\\nWilliams sued for legal malpractice, obtained a default\\njudgment, and recorded that judgment on a property that Jaffe\\nand his wife owned as tenants by the entirety. Williams now\\nclaims post-judgment interest brings her total claim against\\nJaffe to $1.04 million.\\n Jaffe filed a chapter 7 bankruptcy petition in November\\n2015, which identified his debt to Williams and indicated it\\nwas secured by a judgment lien on his residence. On the\\npetition date Jaffe and his wife owned the property as tenants\\nby the entirety, but before bankruptcy proceedings were\\ncomplete Jaffe’s wife died. According to Illinois law, when his\\nwife died the tenancy by the entirety terminated and Jaffe held\\n\\fNo. 18-2726 3\\n\\nthe property individually in fee simple. To avoid the judgment\\nlien Jaffe filed a motion in the bankruptcy court arguing the\\nproperty was exempt under 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(3)(B). Williams\\nresponded that the property was not exempt because the\\nfederal bankruptcy provision that Jaffe relied upon looks to\\nstate law to determine whether a tenancy property is exempt.\\nBecause Illinois does not exempt contingent future interests,\\nWilliams argued, the federal bankruptcy statute does not allow\\nJaffe to exempt the property from the bankruptcy estate. On\\nappeal the parties renew these arguments.\\n II. DISCUSSION\\n We must first determine whether a lien exists and what\\ninterests it attached to. If no lien exists the debtor cannot seek\\nan exemption under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f) and our inquiry is\\ncomplete. See In re Chinosorn, 243 B.R. 688, 694 (Bankr. N.D. Ill.\\n2000) (noting there are “three elements for lien avoidance: (1) a\\nlien must have fixed on an interest of the debtor in property,\\n(2) the lien must impair an exemption to which the debtor\\nwould have been entitled under § 522(b), and (3) the lien must\\nbe a judicial lien—with the debtor bearing the burden of each\\nelement.”). If a lien attached we must also determine to what\\ninterests it attached. Jaffe argues that, if any lien exists, it\\nattached only to his tenancy interest which is exempt under\\nIllinois law. Williams asserts her lien attached to Jaffe’s\\ncontingent future interest in the property. If we determine a\\nlien attached to a property interest we must then determine\\nwhether that interest is exempt under § 522(b)(3)(B). We will\\naddress each issue in turn.\\n\\f4 No. 18-2726\\n\\n A. The Existence of a Lien\\n If a judicial lien attaches to property that is entitled to\\nexemption from the bankruptcy estate, § 522(f) allows the\\ndebtor to avoid the fixing of the lien. See 11 U.S.C. § 522(f).\\nIllinois courts have not decided whether a judgment lien\\nattaches to the individual interests (in particular contingent\\nfuture interests) of a tenant by the entirety. Where a state’s\\nhighest court has not ruled on an issue, we must apply the law\\nin a manner we believe the state supreme court would, if\\npresented with the issue. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Statewide\\nIns. Co., 352 F.3d 1098, 1100 (7th Cir. 2003).\\n To answer this question we turn to the applicable Illinois\\nstatutes, which have long controlled the attachment of judg-\\nment liens. Lehman v. Cottrell, 19 N.E.2d 111, 114 (2d Dist. 1939)\\n(“At common law, land was subject neither to execution nor to\\nthe lien of a judgment. Both these results are purely statu-\\ntory.”). Section 12–101 of the Illinois code creates judgment\\nliens and controls their ability to attach to certain property\\ninterests. The statute dictates that judgment liens may attach to\\nall “real estate” and defines “real estate” broadly to include all\\n“lands, tenements, hereditaments, and all legal and equitable\\nrights therein.” 735 ILCS 5/12–105.\\n The Illinois legislature enumerated the precise interests\\ntenants by the entirety enjoy individually, including the\\nfollowing contingent future interests: “(a) an interest as a\\ntenant in common in the event of a divorce, (b) an interest as a\\njoint tenant in the event that another homestead is established,\\nand (c) a survivorship interest in the entire property in the\\nevent of the other tenant’s death.” 765 ILCS 1005/1c. These\\n\\fNo. 18-2726 5\\n\\ncontingent future interests fall within the statute’s broad\\ndefinition of “real estate.” Therefore, a judgment lien attaches\\nto these individual interests, absent some exception. See In re\\nTolson, 338 B.R. 359, 369 (C.D. Ill. 2005). The only exception that\\n12-101 identifies is section 12-901—the homestead exception.\\nSee 735 ILCS 5/12-901 (the “homestead and all rights in and\\ntitle to that homestead is exempt from attachment, judgment,\\nlevy or judgment sale for the payment of his or her debts or\\nother purposes … .”).\\n Otherwise, “where the Illinois legislature has determined\\nthat a judgment lien should not be created as to a debtor’s\\ninterest in particular property, it has provided that\\nthe property is ‘exempt from judgment,’ see 735 ILCS 5/12-1001\\n(specified personal property), or that it is not ‘subject to any\\nlien,’ see 820 ILCS 305/21 (workers’ compensation award).”\\nChinosorn, 243 B.R. at 695–95. But Illinois does not “exempt\\nfrom judgment” interests held in tenancy by the entirety or\\ncontingent future interests held by tenants by the entirety.\\nIllinois law merely exempts the tenancy interest from the\\nattachment of a judgment lien. 735 ILCS 5/12-112. Section 12-\\n112 provides that judgment liens may attach to all “lands,\\ntenements, goods and chattels.” It then carves out a narrow\\nexception, the tenancy interest, without mentioning the\\ncontingent future interests explicitly created by the Illinois\\nlegislature.\\n It is clear that if the Illinois legislature wanted to exempt\\nparticular interests from the attachment of judgment liens, it\\nhad no problem in doing so. Because the Illinois legislature\\nfailed to do so, we find that Williams’s judgment lien attached\\nto Jaffe’s contingent future interest in the property. See Yotis,\\n\\f6 No. 18-2726\\n\\n518 B.R. at 486–90; Tolson, 338 B.R. at 367 (holding that “the\\ncontingent right of survivorship of each entireties tenant is a\\npresent property right to which a judgment lien extends.”).\\n B. Exemption Under § 522(b)(3)(B)\\n Tenancy by the entirety is a form of property ownership\\nthat arose out of common law and developed as part of the\\nEnglish feudal system. Oval A. Phipps, Tenancy by the Entire-\\nties, 25 Temp. L.Q. 24 (1951). Until the nineteenth century,\\nmarried women in the United States were subject to coverture.\\nThis meant a wife’s legal identity and property were absorbed\\nby her husband and he was granted legal dominion over\\neverything. Id. Therefore, if a married couple purchased\\nproperty, it could not be owned by the husband and wife\\nbecause both spouses were considered a single legal entity (the\\nhusband). Id. Tenancy by the entirety was created so spouses\\ncould own property jointly and upon the death of one spouse\\nthe property would belong to the surviving spouse. Then,\\n“during the middle and latter part of the nineteenth century,\\nas part of a reform movement aimed at emancipating married\\nwomen from their state of social and economic dependency,\\nthe Married Women’s Property Acts were enacted practically\\nuniversally by the legislatures of the several states.” Id.\\n Following the passage of the Married Women’s Property\\nActs, states splintered in their approach to tenancy by the\\nentirety. Many state courts thought the acts destroyed tenancy\\nby the entirety and a few courts held they were unaffected;\\nseveral state courts gave both spouses the rights of the hus-\\nband under common law and a large number of states found\\nboth spouses had only the limited interests a wife previously\\n\\fNo. 18-2726 7\\n\\nhad under common law. Chinosorn, 243 B.R. at 692–93 (collect-\\ning cases). States also divided over whether tenancy by the\\nentirety encompassed real property and personal property, or\\njust real property. Id. at 693. The Illinois judiciary found that\\nthe state’s Married Women’s Act abolished tenancy by the\\nentirety but, in 1990, the legislature codified tenancy by the\\nentirety for real estate owned by spouses who were using the\\nproperty as their homestead. 765 ILCS 1005/1c.\\n Jurisdictions that recognize tenancy by the entirety,\\nhowever, are not uniform in their approach to creditors’ rights\\nagainst the estate:\\n A creditor’s right to levy on a married person’s\\n property is complex, and varies by state and the\\n type of debt and property. Every state allows\\n satisfaction of a debt which has been jointly\\n incurred by a husband and wife against jointly\\n held property, even if that property is held in a\\n tenancy by the entirety … . Some states allow\\n the satisfaction of an individual spouse’s debt\\n against entireties property, but most do not.\\nCreditors’ Rights Against Entireties Property In and Out of\\nBankruptcy, 1983 Ann. Surv. of Bankr. Law Part II (September\\n1983). With this kaleidoscopic background in mind, we turn\\nto the bankruptcy aspect of this case.\\n A debtor’s bankruptcy estate must include “all legal or\\nequitable interests of the debtor in property as of the com-\\nmencement of the case.” 11 U.S.C. § 541(a). This includes an\\nindividual debtor’s interest in property held as a tenant by the\\nentirety. In re Hunter, 970 F.2d 299, 303 (7th Cir. 1992); Napotnik\\n\\f8 No. 18-2726\\n\\nv. Equibank & Parkvale Savings Association, 679 F.2d 316 (3d Cir.\\n1982). All property in the estate is liquidated by the bankruptcy\\ntrustee and the proceeds are distributed to creditors based on\\ntheir priority. 11 U.S.C. § 704. But the Bankruptcy Code allows\\ndebtors to exempt certain estate property. Exempt property is\\nremoved from the estate and retained by the debtor.\\nSection 522(b)(3)(B) exempts:\\n [a]ny interest in property in which the debtor\\n had, immediately before the commencement of\\n the case, an interest as a tenant by the entirety or\\n joint tenant to the extent that such interest as a\\n tenant by the entirety or joint tenant is exempt\\n from process under applicable nonbankruptcy\\n law.\\nThe law of co-tenancies is almost exclusively a matter of state\\nlaw since there is no general federal property law, therefore,\\nthe “applicable nonbankruptcy law” is Illinois law. The\\nquestion here is to what extent § 522(b)(3)(B) exempts Jaffe’s\\ncontingent future interest in the tenancy property. There is no\\ndispute that a lien that attached to Jaffe’s tenancy interest would\\nbe exempt. However, the nub of this case lies in the exemption\\nof the lesser interests that are not exempted under Illinois law.\\n The district court interpreted § 522(b)(3)(B) to exempt\\nJaffe’s contingent future interest in the entireties property,\\ndespite the fact that Illinois provides no exemption for these\\ninterests. In reaching this conclusion the district court parti-\\ntioned the statutory language into four elements:\\n § 522(b)(3)(B) exempts: (i) any interest in prop-\\n erty; (ii) in which the debtor had an interest as a\\n\\fNo. 18-2726 9\\n\\n tenant in the entirety; (iii) at the time the bank-\\n ruptcy petition was filed; (iv) to the extent that\\n state law exempts an interest as tenant in the\\n entirety from legal process.\\nJaffe v. Williams, No. 1:17-cv-4662, slip op. at *4 (N.D. Ill.\\nMay 22, 2018). The district court noted that Jaffe had an interest\\nas a tenant by the entirety (as well as contingent future\\ninterests) at the time the bankruptcy petition was filed (satisfy-\\ning the first three elements). The district court then concluded\\nthat any interest he held (contingent future interests included)\\nwas exempt to the extent that the tenancy interest was exempt\\nunder Illinois law. And since Illinois exempts the tenancy\\ninterest, more specifically the forced sale of the tenancy\\nproperty to collect a debt against just one tenant, all other\\ninterests Jaffe had as a tenancy by the entirety were exempt\\ncompletely.\\n But the fourth element of the district court’s analysis left\\nout a key word—“such.” Section 522(b)(3)(B) exempts certain\\ninterests “to the extent that such interest as a tenant by the\\nentirety” is exempt under state law. By not giving sufficient\\nweight to the word “such,” the district court interpreted the\\nstatute to mean that any property interest is exempt to the\\nextent that the entirety interest is exempt. But identifying what\\n“such” refers to is the main interpretive issue in this case. If\\n“such” refers just to “any interest,” as Jaffe argues, the district\\ncourt’s conclusion is correct because the statute would exempt\\n“any interest” the debtor had to the extent that any tenancy\\ninterest is exempt from state law. However, if “such interest”\\nrefers to something more limited, like the precise interests the\\n\\f10 No. 18-2726\\n\\ndebtor was seeking to exempt, the district court’s interpreta-\\ntion is incorrect.\\n Section 522(b)(3)(B) begins broadly by stating it exempts\\n“any interest in property.” The provision goes on to state that\\nthe debtor must have an interest in the property “as a tenant by\\nthe entirety” in order to claim an exemption, thus cabining “any\\ninterest in property.” This means that if, for example, a tenant\\nby the entirety transferred her interest in the income the\\nproperty generated, the transferee could not claim an exemp-\\ntion under § 522(b)(3)(B) since she does not hold the interest as\\na tenant by the entirety. The provision goes on to state that the\\nexemption applies “to the extent that such interests as a tenant\\nby the entirety,” meaning the precise interests that the debtor\\nholds as a tenant by the entirety, are exempt under state law.\\n We read this provision to establish two things. First, the\\nopening language indicates the interests that may qualify for\\nexemptions—any interest the debtor has, so long as she holds\\nthat interest as a tenant by the entirety. The provision then\\ndefines which of those qualifying interests are exempt—all of\\nthe debtor’s qualifying interests to the extent that they are\\nexempt under applicable nonbankruptcy law. Our reading of\\nthe statute yields a simple result—interests a debtor holds as\\na tenant by the entirety are exempt to the extent that those\\ninterests the debtor holds as a tenant by the entirety are exempt\\nunder state law.\\n The statutory language does not support the argument that\\n“such interest as a tenant by the entirety” is referring more\\nbroadly to “any interest in property” as Jaffe argues. It is much\\nmore sensible to read “such interest” as referring to the\\n\\fNo. 18-2726 11\\n\\ncomplete introductory phrase, which identifies the debtor’s\\nspecific interests that potentially qualify for an exemption.\\nAdditionally, the signifier (“such interest”) and referent\\n(“interest as a tenant by the entirety”) use mirroring language\\nindicating that the latter is referring to the former: “property in\\nwhich the debtor had … an interest as a tenant by the entirety …\\nto the extent that such interest as a tenant by the entirety” is\\nexempt. This buttresses the conclusion that “such interest” was\\nmeant to refer to the specific interests that the debtor held as a\\ntenant by the entirety, rather than only referring to “any\\ninterest.”\\n Given the variety of rights, interests, and exemptions in\\ntenancy by the entirety, it is likely that Congress enacted\\n§ 522(b)(3)(B) to reflect the full spectrum of different ap-\\nproaches states have taken. See Chinosorn, 243 B.R. at 700 (“the\\napparent intent of the provision is to provide, in bankruptcy,\\na level of protection from claims of creditors identical to the\\nprotection that owners of entireties property would have in\\ncollection proceedings outside of bankruptcy, under applicable\\nstate law.”). “Any interest in property in which the debtor\\nhad … an interest” is broad, inclusive language that signals\\nthat all state exemptions for tenants by the entirety will be\\nhonored in federal bankruptcy court. But the district court’s\\nreading would mean that no matter how nuanced state\\nexemptions for tenants by the entirety are, all interests would\\nbe exempt if the state exempts the entirety interest. This means\\nthat if Illinois decided to explicitly exempt the contingent\\nfuture interests that Williams’s lien attached to, such an\\nexemption would be given no effect by a bankruptcy statute\\n\\f12 No. 18-2726\\n\\nthat relies on state law. This interpretation leads to an absurd\\nresult and could not be what Congress intended.\\n Additionally, our reading of the statute is in line with each\\nof our sister circuits that have considered the issue. While it\\ndoes not appear that those cases involved arguments by the\\nparties that required similar exegesis of the statutory text, the\\nfact that the no party argued otherwise implies that the statute\\nis naturally read as we read it today. See e.g., In re Arango, 992\\nF.2d 611, 613 (6th Cir. 1993) (“[W]e must first look to Tennessee\\nlaw to classify Arango’s interests in entireties property. We\\nthen determine which of those interest is exempt from his\\nbankruptcy estate by determining whether each particular\\ninterest is subject to execution under Tennessee law” (emphasis\\nadded)); Ragsdale v. Genesco, Inc., 674 F.2d 277, 239 (4th Cir.\\n1982) (“The phrase ‘to the extent such interest … is exempt\\nfrom process under applicable nonbankruptcy law’ is of\\ndecisive importance. If the Ragsdales’ residential real property\\ncould be reached to satisfy a state court judgment in Virginia,\\nit could not be successfully claimed as exempt”); Napotnik v.\\nEquibank & Parkvale Sav. Ass’n, 679 F.2d 316 , 322–23 (3d Cir.\\n1982) (“Since the debtor’s interest in the real property owned\\nwith his wife as tenants by the entirety is not exempt from\\nprocess in Pennsylvania because they are joint obligors, he is\\nnot entitled to exempt that portion of his equity subject to\\nEquibank’s judicial lien, and cannot avoid that lien under\\nSection 522(f)”).\\n Here, Williams obtained a judgment lien on Jaffe’s contin-\\ngent future interest that existed when Jaffe filed his bankruptcy\\npetition. The first determination that must be made is whether\\nJaffe’s interest is the kind that potentially qualifies for an\\n\\fNo. 18-2726 13\\n\\nexemption under § 522(b)(3)(B). Any interest can qualify so\\nlong as it is an interest one holds “as a tenant by the entirety.”\\nJaffe held his interest as a tenant by the entirety so we must\\ndetermine whether the interest is exempt. This requires looking\\nto Illinois law to determine whether contingent future interests\\nare exempt from process.\\n The main protection that Illinois law provides tenants by\\nthe entirety is that a creditor is unable to force the sale of the\\nproperty to collect a debt against only one of the tenants. 735\\nILCS 5/12-112 (2014). Illinois law does not make all interests\\nheld by tenants by the entirety immune from process and we\\nneed not look hard for a state that does—Indiana law exempts\\n“any interest the judgment has in real estate as a tenant by the\\nentireties.” Ind. Code § 34-2-28-1(a)(5); In re Paeplow, 972 F.2d\\n730, 737 (7th Cir. 1992). Illinois law explicitly refuses to exempt\\nincome from entirety properties and fails to provide an\\nexemption for the contingent future interests. 765 ILCS 1005/1c;\\nsee also Yotis, 518 B.R. at 489–90 (holding that “any future\\ninterest that may be held by either tenant alone, such as the\\ncontingent future interest, is not exempt at all”). Accordingly,\\nwe find that Jaffe is not entitled to an exemption of his contin-\\ngent future interest. The district court’s conclusion otherwise\\nwas erroneous.\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n Because the statute exempts an individual’s tenancy\\ninterest to the extent that state law exempts that interest, we\\nreverse the decision of the district court and remand for further\\nproceedings consistent with this opinion.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4422997/\", \"author_raw\": \"William Joseph Bauer\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"BAUER"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"HAMILTON"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"BRENNAN"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"BAUER\": \", Circuit\", \"HAMILTON\": \", Circuit\", \"BRENNAN\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645744/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":8,"string":"8"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Laverne Williams v. Scott Jaffe\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-08-05\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\nNo. 18-2726\n\nIN RE: SCOTT N. JAFFE,\n Debtor-Appellee,\nAPPEAL OF: LAVERNE WILLIAMS.\n\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\n No. 17 C 04662 — John J. Tharp, Jr., Judge.\n\n\n\n ARGUED FEBRUARY 7, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 5, 2019\n\n\n Before BAUER, HAMILTON, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\n BAUER, Circuit Judge. Section 522(b)(1) of the United States\nBankruptcy Code states that a “debtor may exempt from\nproperty of the [bankruptcy] estate the property listed in either\nparagraph (2) or, in the alternative paragraph (3).” At issue in\nthis case is paragraph (3) subsection (B), which states, in full,\nthat:\n Property listed in this paragraph is any interest\n in property which the debtor had, immediately\n before the commencement of the case, an inter-\n est as a tenant by the entirety or joint tenant to\n\f2 No. 18-2726\n\n the extent that such interest as a tenant by the\n entirety or joint tenant is exempt from process\n under applicable nonbankruptcy law.\n11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(3)(B). We must determine to what extent\ncontingent future interests created by Illinois law are exempt\nunder this section. The most natural reading of the statute\nexempts any interest held by an individual as a tenant by the\nentirety to the extent that state law exempts that particular\ninterest. The district court found that any interest held by the\ndebtor is exempt to the extent that state law exempted the\nentirety interest. We reverse the district court and hold that the\ndebtor’s property cannot be excluded from the bankruptcy\nestate.\n I. BACKGROUND\n In 1998, Laverne Williams wanted to file a medical malprac-\ntice lawsuit and hired Scott Jaffe to be her attorney. The statute\nof limitations expired before Jaffe filed a complaint and\nWilliams sued for legal malpractice, obtained a default\njudgment, and recorded that judgment on a property that Jaffe\nand his wife owned as tenants by the entirety. Williams now\nclaims post-judgment interest brings her total claim against\nJaffe to $1.04 million.\n Jaffe filed a chapter 7 bankruptcy petition in November\n2015, which identified his debt to Williams and indicated it\nwas secured by a judgment lien on his residence. On the\npetition date Jaffe and his wife owned the property as tenants\nby the entirety, but before bankruptcy proceedings were\ncomplete Jaffe’s wife died. According to Illinois law, when his\nwife died the tenancy by the entirety terminated and Jaffe held\n\fNo. 18-2726 3\n\nthe property individually in fee simple. To avoid the judgment\nlien Jaffe filed a motion in the bankruptcy court arguing the\nproperty was exempt under 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(3)(B). Williams\nresponded that the property was not exempt because the\nfederal bankruptcy provision that Jaffe relied upon looks to\nstate law to determine whether a tenancy property is exempt.\nBecause Illinois does not exempt contingent future interests,\nWilliams argued, the federal bankruptcy statute does not allow\nJaffe to exempt the property from the bankruptcy estate. On\nappeal the parties renew these arguments.\n II. DISCUSSION\n We must first determine whether a lien exists and what\ninterests it attached to. If no lien exists the debtor cannot seek\nan exemption under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f) and our inquiry is\ncomplete. See In re Chinosorn, 243 B.R. 688, 694 (Bankr. N.D. Ill.\n2000) (noting there are “three elements for lien avoidance: (1) a\nlien must have fixed on an interest of the debtor in property,\n(2) the lien must impair an exemption to which the debtor\nwould have been entitled under § 522(b), and (3) the lien must\nbe a judicial lien—with the debtor bearing the burden of each\nelement.”). If a lien attached we must also determine to what\ninterests it attached. Jaffe argues that, if any lien exists, it\nattached only to his tenancy interest which is exempt under\nIllinois law. Williams asserts her lien attached to Jaffe’s\ncontingent future interest in the property. If we determine a\nlien attached to a property interest we must then determine\nwhether that interest is exempt under § 522(b)(3)(B). We will\naddress each issue in turn.\n\f4 No. 18-2726\n\n A. The Existence of a Lien\n If a judicial lien attaches to property that is entitled to\nexemption from the bankruptcy estate, § 522(f) allows the\ndebtor to avoid the fixing of the lien. See 11 U.S.C. § 522(f).\nIllinois courts have not decided whether a judgment lien\nattaches to the individual interests (in particular contingent\nfuture interests) of a tenant by the entirety. Where a state’s\nhighest court has not ruled on an issue, we must apply the law\nin a manner we believe the state supreme court would, if\npresented with the issue. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Statewide\nIns. Co., 352 F.3d 1098, 1100 (7th Cir. 2003).\n To answer this question we turn to the applicable Illinois\nstatutes, which have long controlled the attachment of judg-\nment liens. Lehman v. Cottrell, 19 N.E.2d 111, 114 (2d Dist. 1939)\n(“At common law, land was subject neither to execution nor to\nthe lien of a judgment. Both these results are purely statu-\ntory.”). Section 12–101 of the Illinois code creates judgment\nliens and controls their ability to attach to certain property\ninterests. The statute dictates that judgment liens may attach to\nall “real estate” and defines “real estate” broadly to include all\n“lands, tenements, hereditaments, and all legal and equitable\nrights therein.” 735 ILCS 5/12–105.\n The Illinois legislature enumerated the precise interests\ntenants by the entirety enjoy individually, including the\nfollowing contingent future interests: “(a) an interest as a\ntenant in common in the event of a divorce, (b) an interest as a\njoint tenant in the event that another homestead is established,\nand (c) a survivorship interest in the entire property in the\nevent of the other tenant’s death.” 765 ILCS 1005/1c. These\n\fNo. 18-2726 5\n\ncontingent future interests fall within the statute’s broad\ndefinition of “real estate.” Therefore, a judgment lien attaches\nto these individual interests, absent some exception. See In re\nTolson, 338 B.R. 359, 369 (C.D. Ill. 2005). The only exception that\n12-101 identifies is section 12-901—the homestead exception.\nSee 735 ILCS 5/12-901 (the “homestead and all rights in and\ntitle to that homestead is exempt from attachment, judgment,\nlevy or judgment sale for the payment of his or her debts or\nother purposes … .”).\n Otherwise, “where the Illinois legislature has determined\nthat a judgment lien should not be created as to a debtor’s\ninterest in particular property, it has provided that\nthe property is ‘exempt from judgment,’ see 735 ILCS 5/12-1001\n(specified personal property), or that it is not ‘subject to any\nlien,’ see 820 ILCS 305/21 (workers’ compensation award).”\nChinosorn, 243 B.R. at 695–95. But Illinois does not “exempt\nfrom judgment” interests held in tenancy by the entirety or\ncontingent future interests held by tenants by the entirety.\nIllinois law merely exempts the tenancy interest from the\nattachment of a judgment lien. 735 ILCS 5/12-112. Section 12-\n112 provides that judgment liens may attach to all “lands,\ntenements, goods and chattels.” It then carves out a narrow\nexception, the tenancy interest, without mentioning the\ncontingent future interests explicitly created by the Illinois\nlegislature.\n It is clear that if the Illinois legislature wanted to exempt\nparticular interests from the attachment of judgment liens, it\nhad no problem in doing so. Because the Illinois legislature\nfailed to do so, we find that Williams’s judgment lien attached\nto Jaffe’s contingent future interest in the property. See Yotis,\n\f6 No. 18-2726\n\n518 B.R. at 486–90; Tolson, 338 B.R. at 367 (holding that “the\ncontingent right of survivorship of each entireties tenant is a\npresent property right to which a judgment lien extends.”).\n B. Exemption Under § 522(b)(3)(B)\n Tenancy by the entirety is a form of property ownership\nthat arose out of common law and developed as part of the\nEnglish feudal system. Oval A. Phipps, Tenancy by the Entire-\nties, 25 Temp. L.Q. 24 (1951). Until the nineteenth century,\nmarried women in the United States were subject to coverture.\nThis meant a wife’s legal identity and property were absorbed\nby her husband and he was granted legal dominion over\neverything. Id. Therefore, if a married couple purchased\nproperty, it could not be owned by the husband and wife\nbecause both spouses were considered a single legal entity (the\nhusband). Id. Tenancy by the entirety was created so spouses\ncould own property jointly and upon the death of one spouse\nthe property would belong to the surviving spouse. Then,\n“during the middle and latter part of the nineteenth century,\nas part of a reform movement aimed at emancipating married\nwomen from their state of social and economic dependency,\nthe Married Women’s Property Acts were enacted practically\nuniversally by the legislatures of the several states.” Id.\n Following the passage of the Married Women’s Property\nActs, states splintered in their approach to tenancy by the\nentirety. Many state courts thought the acts destroyed tenancy\nby the entirety and a few courts held they were unaffected;\nseveral state courts gave both spouses the rights of the hus-\nband under common law and a large number of states found\nboth spouses had only the limited interests a wife previously\n\fNo. 18-2726 7\n\nhad under common law. Chinosorn, 243 B.R. at 692–93 (collect-\ning cases). States also divided over whether tenancy by the\nentirety encompassed real property and personal property, or\njust real property. Id. at 693. The Illinois judiciary found that\nthe state’s Married Women’s Act abolished tenancy by the\nentirety but, in 1990, the legislature codified tenancy by the\nentirety for real estate owned by spouses who were using the\nproperty as their homestead. 765 ILCS 1005/1c.\n Jurisdictions that recognize tenancy by the entirety,\nhowever, are not uniform in their approach to creditors’ rights\nagainst the estate:\n A creditor’s right to levy on a married person’s\n property is complex, and varies by state and the\n type of debt and property. Every state allows\n satisfaction of a debt which has been jointly\n incurred by a husband and wife against jointly\n held property, even if that property is held in a\n tenancy by the entirety … . Some states allow\n the satisfaction of an individual spouse’s debt\n against entireties property, but most do not.\nCreditors’ Rights Against Entireties Property In and Out of\nBankruptcy, 1983 Ann. Surv. of Bankr. Law Part II (September\n1983). With this kaleidoscopic background in mind, we turn\nto the bankruptcy aspect of this case.\n A debtor’s bankruptcy estate must include “all legal or\nequitable interests of the debtor in property as of the com-\nmencement of the case.” 11 U.S.C. § 541(a). This includes an\nindividual debtor’s interest in property held as a tenant by the\nentirety. In re Hunter, 970 F.2d 299, 303 (7th Cir. 1992); Napotnik\n\f8 No. 18-2726\n\nv. Equibank & Parkvale Savings Association, 679 F.2d 316 (3d Cir.\n1982). All property in the estate is liquidated by the bankruptcy\ntrustee and the proceeds are distributed to creditors based on\ntheir priority. 11 U.S.C. § 704. But the Bankruptcy Code allows\ndebtors to exempt certain estate property. Exempt property is\nremoved from the estate and retained by the debtor.\nSection 522(b)(3)(B) exempts:\n [a]ny interest in property in which the debtor\n had, immediately before the commencement of\n the case, an interest as a tenant by the entirety or\n joint tenant to the extent that such interest as a\n tenant by the entirety or joint tenant is exempt\n from process under applicable nonbankruptcy\n law.\nThe law of co-tenancies is almost exclusively a matter of state\nlaw since there is no general federal property law, therefore,\nthe “applicable nonbankruptcy law” is Illinois law. The\nquestion here is to what extent § 522(b)(3)(B) exempts Jaffe’s\ncontingent future interest in the tenancy property. There is no\ndispute that a lien that attached to Jaffe’s tenancy interest would\nbe exempt. However, the nub of this case lies in the exemption\nof the lesser interests that are not exempted under Illinois law.\n The district court interpreted § 522(b)(3)(B) to exempt\nJaffe’s contingent future interest in the entireties property,\ndespite the fact that Illinois provides no exemption for these\ninterests. In reaching this conclusion the district court parti-\ntioned the statutory language into four elements:\n § 522(b)(3)(B) exempts: (i) any interest in prop-\n erty; (ii) in which the debtor had an interest as a\n\fNo. 18-2726 9\n\n tenant in the entirety; (iii) at the time the bank-\n ruptcy petition was filed; (iv) to the extent that\n state law exempts an interest as tenant in the\n entirety from legal process.\nJaffe v. Williams, No. 1:17-cv-4662, slip op. at *4 (N.D. Ill.\nMay 22, 2018). The district court noted that Jaffe had an interest\nas a tenant by the entirety (as well as contingent future\ninterests) at the time the bankruptcy petition was filed (satisfy-\ning the first three elements). The district court then concluded\nthat any interest he held (contingent future interests included)\nwas exempt to the extent that the tenancy interest was exempt\nunder Illinois law. And since Illinois exempts the tenancy\ninterest, more specifically the forced sale of the tenancy\nproperty to collect a debt against just one tenant, all other\ninterests Jaffe had as a tenancy by the entirety were exempt\ncompletely.\n But the fourth element of the district court’s analysis left\nout a key word—“such.” Section 522(b)(3)(B) exempts certain\ninterests “to the extent that such interest as a tenant by the\nentirety” is exempt under state law. By not giving sufficient\nweight to the word “such,” the district court interpreted the\nstatute to mean that any property interest is exempt to the\nextent that the entirety interest is exempt. But identifying what\n“such” refers to is the main interpretive issue in this case. If\n“such” refers just to “any interest,” as Jaffe argues, the district\ncourt’s conclusion is correct because the statute would exempt\n“any interest” the debtor had to the extent that any tenancy\ninterest is exempt from state law. However, if “such interest”\nrefers to something more limited, like the precise interests the\n\f10 No. 18-2726\n\ndebtor was seeking to exempt, the district court’s interpreta-\ntion is incorrect.\n Section 522(b)(3)(B) begins broadly by stating it exempts\n“any interest in property.” The provision goes on to state that\nthe debtor must have an interest in the property “as a tenant by\nthe entirety” in order to claim an exemption, thus cabining “any\ninterest in property.” This means that if, for example, a tenant\nby the entirety transferred her interest in the income the\nproperty generated, the transferee could not claim an exemp-\ntion under § 522(b)(3)(B) since she does not hold the interest as\na tenant by the entirety. The provision goes on to state that the\nexemption applies “to the extent that such interests as a tenant\nby the entirety,” meaning the precise interests that the debtor\nholds as a tenant by the entirety, are exempt under state law.\n We read this provision to establish two things. First, the\nopening language indicates the interests that may qualify for\nexemptions—any interest the debtor has, so long as she holds\nthat interest as a tenant by the entirety. The provision then\ndefines which of those qualifying interests are exempt—all of\nthe debtor’s qualifying interests to the extent that they are\nexempt under applicable nonbankruptcy law. Our reading of\nthe statute yields a simple result—interests a debtor holds as\na tenant by the entirety are exempt to the extent that those\ninterests the debtor holds as a tenant by the entirety are exempt\nunder state law.\n The statutory language does not support the argument that\n“such interest as a tenant by the entirety” is referring more\nbroadly to “any interest in property” as Jaffe argues. It is much\nmore sensible to read “such interest” as referring to the\n\fNo. 18-2726 11\n\ncomplete introductory phrase, which identifies the debtor’s\nspecific interests that potentially qualify for an exemption.\nAdditionally, the signifier (“such interest”) and referent\n(“interest as a tenant by the entirety”) use mirroring language\nindicating that the latter is referring to the former: “property in\nwhich the debtor had … an interest as a tenant by the entirety …\nto the extent that such interest as a tenant by the entirety” is\nexempt. This buttresses the conclusion that “such interest” was\nmeant to refer to the specific interests that the debtor held as a\ntenant by the entirety, rather than only referring to “any\ninterest.”\n Given the variety of rights, interests, and exemptions in\ntenancy by the entirety, it is likely that Congress enacted\n§ 522(b)(3)(B) to reflect the full spectrum of different ap-\nproaches states have taken. See Chinosorn, 243 B.R. at 700 (“the\napparent intent of the provision is to provide, in bankruptcy,\na level of protection from claims of creditors identical to the\nprotection that owners of entireties property would have in\ncollection proceedings outside of bankruptcy, under applicable\nstate law.”). “Any interest in property in which the debtor\nhad … an interest” is broad, inclusive language that signals\nthat all state exemptions for tenants by the entirety will be\nhonored in federal bankruptcy court. But the district court’s\nreading would mean that no matter how nuanced state\nexemptions for tenants by the entirety are, all interests would\nbe exempt if the state exempts the entirety interest. This means\nthat if Illinois decided to explicitly exempt the contingent\nfuture interests that Williams’s lien attached to, such an\nexemption would be given no effect by a bankruptcy statute\n\f12 No. 18-2726\n\nthat relies on state law. This interpretation leads to an absurd\nresult and could not be what Congress intended.\n Additionally, our reading of the statute is in line with each\nof our sister circuits that have considered the issue. While it\ndoes not appear that those cases involved arguments by the\nparties that required similar exegesis of the statutory text, the\nfact that the no party argued otherwise implies that the statute\nis naturally read as we read it today. See e.g., In re Arango, 992\nF.2d 611, 613 (6th Cir. 1993) (“[W]e must first look to Tennessee\nlaw to classify Arango’s interests in entireties property. We\nthen determine which of those interest is exempt from his\nbankruptcy estate by determining whether each particular\ninterest is subject to execution under Tennessee law” (emphasis\nadded)); Ragsdale v. Genesco, Inc., 674 F.2d 277, 239 (4th Cir.\n1982) (“The phrase ‘to the extent such interest … is exempt\nfrom process under applicable nonbankruptcy law’ is of\ndecisive importance. If the Ragsdales’ residential real property\ncould be reached to satisfy a state court judgment in Virginia,\nit could not be successfully claimed as exempt”); Napotnik v.\nEquibank & Parkvale Sav. Ass’n, 679 F.2d 316 , 322–23 (3d Cir.\n1982) (“Since the debtor’s interest in the real property owned\nwith his wife as tenants by the entirety is not exempt from\nprocess in Pennsylvania because they are joint obligors, he is\nnot entitled to exempt that portion of his equity subject to\nEquibank’s judicial lien, and cannot avoid that lien under\nSection 522(f)”).\n Here, Williams obtained a judgment lien on Jaffe’s contin-\ngent future interest that existed when Jaffe filed his bankruptcy\npetition. The first determination that must be made is whether\nJaffe’s interest is the kind that potentially qualifies for an\n\fNo. 18-2726 13\n\nexemption under § 522(b)(3)(B). Any interest can qualify so\nlong as it is an interest one holds “as a tenant by the entirety.”\nJaffe held his interest as a tenant by the entirety so we must\ndetermine whether the interest is exempt. This requires looking\nto Illinois law to determine whether contingent future interests\nare exempt from process.\n The main protection that Illinois law provides tenants by\nthe entirety is that a creditor is unable to force the sale of the\nproperty to collect a debt against only one of the tenants. 735\nILCS 5/12-112 (2014). Illinois law does not make all interests\nheld by tenants by the entirety immune from process and we\nneed not look hard for a state that does—Indiana law exempts\n“any interest the judgment has in real estate as a tenant by the\nentireties.” Ind. Code § 34-2-28-1(a)(5); In re Paeplow, 972 F.2d\n730, 737 (7th Cir. 1992). Illinois law explicitly refuses to exempt\nincome from entirety properties and fails to provide an\nexemption for the contingent future interests. 765 ILCS 1005/1c;\nsee also Yotis, 518 B.R. at 489–90 (holding that “any future\ninterest that may be held by either tenant alone, such as the\ncontingent future interest, is not exempt at all”). Accordingly,\nwe find that Jaffe is not entitled to an exemption of his contin-\ngent future interest. The district court’s conclusion otherwise\nwas erroneous.\n III. CONCLUSION\n Because the statute exempts an individual’s tenancy\ninterest to the extent that state law exempts that interest, we\nreverse the decision of the district court and remand for further\nproceedings consistent with this opinion.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Laverne Williams v. Scott Jaffe\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-08-05\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\nNo. 18-2726\\n\\nIN RE: SCOTT N. JAFFE,\\n Debtor-Appellee,\\nAPPEAL OF: LAVERNE WILLIAMS.\\n\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 17 C 04662 — John J. Tharp, Jr., Judge.\\n\\n\\n\\n ARGUED FEBRUARY 7, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 5, 2019\\n\\n\\n Before BAUER, HAMILTON, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\\n BAUER, Circuit Judge. Section 522(b)(1) of the United States\\nBankruptcy Code states that a “debtor may exempt from\\nproperty of the [bankruptcy] estate the property listed in either\\nparagraph (2) or, in the alternative paragraph (3).” At issue in\\nthis case is paragraph (3) subsection (B), which states, in full,\\nthat:\\n Property listed in this paragraph is any interest\\n in property which the debtor had, immediately\\n before the commencement of the case, an inter-\\n est as a tenant by the entirety or joint tenant to\\n\\f2 No. 18-2726\\n\\n the extent that such interest as a tenant by the\\n entirety or joint tenant is exempt from process\\n under applicable nonbankruptcy law.\\n11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(3)(B). We must determine to what extent\\ncontingent future interests created by Illinois law are exempt\\nunder this section. The most natural reading of the statute\\nexempts any interest held by an individual as a tenant by the\\nentirety to the extent that state law exempts that particular\\ninterest. The district court found that any interest held by the\\ndebtor is exempt to the extent that state law exempted the\\nentirety interest. We reverse the district court and hold that the\\ndebtor’s property cannot be excluded from the bankruptcy\\nestate.\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n In 1998, Laverne Williams wanted to file a medical malprac-\\ntice lawsuit and hired Scott Jaffe to be her attorney. The statute\\nof limitations expired before Jaffe filed a complaint and\\nWilliams sued for legal malpractice, obtained a default\\njudgment, and recorded that judgment on a property that Jaffe\\nand his wife owned as tenants by the entirety. Williams now\\nclaims post-judgment interest brings her total claim against\\nJaffe to $1.04 million.\\n Jaffe filed a chapter 7 bankruptcy petition in November\\n2015, which identified his debt to Williams and indicated it\\nwas secured by a judgment lien on his residence. On the\\npetition date Jaffe and his wife owned the property as tenants\\nby the entirety, but before bankruptcy proceedings were\\ncomplete Jaffe’s wife died. According to Illinois law, when his\\nwife died the tenancy by the entirety terminated and Jaffe held\\n\\fNo. 18-2726 3\\n\\nthe property individually in fee simple. To avoid the judgment\\nlien Jaffe filed a motion in the bankruptcy court arguing the\\nproperty was exempt under 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(3)(B). Williams\\nresponded that the property was not exempt because the\\nfederal bankruptcy provision that Jaffe relied upon looks to\\nstate law to determine whether a tenancy property is exempt.\\nBecause Illinois does not exempt contingent future interests,\\nWilliams argued, the federal bankruptcy statute does not allow\\nJaffe to exempt the property from the bankruptcy estate. On\\nappeal the parties renew these arguments.\\n II. DISCUSSION\\n We must first determine whether a lien exists and what\\ninterests it attached to. If no lien exists the debtor cannot seek\\nan exemption under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f) and our inquiry is\\ncomplete. See In re Chinosorn, 243 B.R. 688, 694 (Bankr. N.D. Ill.\\n2000) (noting there are “three elements for lien avoidance: (1) a\\nlien must have fixed on an interest of the debtor in property,\\n(2) the lien must impair an exemption to which the debtor\\nwould have been entitled under § 522(b), and (3) the lien must\\nbe a judicial lien—with the debtor bearing the burden of each\\nelement.”). If a lien attached we must also determine to what\\ninterests it attached. Jaffe argues that, if any lien exists, it\\nattached only to his tenancy interest which is exempt under\\nIllinois law. Williams asserts her lien attached to Jaffe’s\\ncontingent future interest in the property. If we determine a\\nlien attached to a property interest we must then determine\\nwhether that interest is exempt under § 522(b)(3)(B). We will\\naddress each issue in turn.\\n\\f4 No. 18-2726\\n\\n A. The Existence of a Lien\\n If a judicial lien attaches to property that is entitled to\\nexemption from the bankruptcy estate, § 522(f) allows the\\ndebtor to avoid the fixing of the lien. See 11 U.S.C. § 522(f).\\nIllinois courts have not decided whether a judgment lien\\nattaches to the individual interests (in particular contingent\\nfuture interests) of a tenant by the entirety. Where a state’s\\nhighest court has not ruled on an issue, we must apply the law\\nin a manner we believe the state supreme court would, if\\npresented with the issue. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Statewide\\nIns. Co., 352 F.3d 1098, 1100 (7th Cir. 2003).\\n To answer this question we turn to the applicable Illinois\\nstatutes, which have long controlled the attachment of judg-\\nment liens. Lehman v. Cottrell, 19 N.E.2d 111, 114 (2d Dist. 1939)\\n(“At common law, land was subject neither to execution nor to\\nthe lien of a judgment. Both these results are purely statu-\\ntory.”). Section 12–101 of the Illinois code creates judgment\\nliens and controls their ability to attach to certain property\\ninterests. The statute dictates that judgment liens may attach to\\nall “real estate” and defines “real estate” broadly to include all\\n“lands, tenements, hereditaments, and all legal and equitable\\nrights therein.” 735 ILCS 5/12–105.\\n The Illinois legislature enumerated the precise interests\\ntenants by the entirety enjoy individually, including the\\nfollowing contingent future interests: “(a) an interest as a\\ntenant in common in the event of a divorce, (b) an interest as a\\njoint tenant in the event that another homestead is established,\\nand (c) a survivorship interest in the entire property in the\\nevent of the other tenant’s death.” 765 ILCS 1005/1c. These\\n\\fNo. 18-2726 5\\n\\ncontingent future interests fall within the statute’s broad\\ndefinition of “real estate.” Therefore, a judgment lien attaches\\nto these individual interests, absent some exception. See In re\\nTolson, 338 B.R. 359, 369 (C.D. Ill. 2005). The only exception that\\n12-101 identifies is section 12-901—the homestead exception.\\nSee 735 ILCS 5/12-901 (the “homestead and all rights in and\\ntitle to that homestead is exempt from attachment, judgment,\\nlevy or judgment sale for the payment of his or her debts or\\nother purposes … .”).\\n Otherwise, “where the Illinois legislature has determined\\nthat a judgment lien should not be created as to a debtor’s\\ninterest in particular property, it has provided that\\nthe property is ‘exempt from judgment,’ see 735 ILCS 5/12-1001\\n(specified personal property), or that it is not ‘subject to any\\nlien,’ see 820 ILCS 305/21 (workers’ compensation award).”\\nChinosorn, 243 B.R. at 695–95. But Illinois does not “exempt\\nfrom judgment” interests held in tenancy by the entirety or\\ncontingent future interests held by tenants by the entirety.\\nIllinois law merely exempts the tenancy interest from the\\nattachment of a judgment lien. 735 ILCS 5/12-112. Section 12-\\n112 provides that judgment liens may attach to all “lands,\\ntenements, goods and chattels.” It then carves out a narrow\\nexception, the tenancy interest, without mentioning the\\ncontingent future interests explicitly created by the Illinois\\nlegislature.\\n It is clear that if the Illinois legislature wanted to exempt\\nparticular interests from the attachment of judgment liens, it\\nhad no problem in doing so. Because the Illinois legislature\\nfailed to do so, we find that Williams’s judgment lien attached\\nto Jaffe’s contingent future interest in the property. See Yotis,\\n\\f6 No. 18-2726\\n\\n518 B.R. at 486–90; Tolson, 338 B.R. at 367 (holding that “the\\ncontingent right of survivorship of each entireties tenant is a\\npresent property right to which a judgment lien extends.”).\\n B. Exemption Under § 522(b)(3)(B)\\n Tenancy by the entirety is a form of property ownership\\nthat arose out of common law and developed as part of the\\nEnglish feudal system. Oval A. Phipps, Tenancy by the Entire-\\nties, 25 Temp. L.Q. 24 (1951). Until the nineteenth century,\\nmarried women in the United States were subject to coverture.\\nThis meant a wife’s legal identity and property were absorbed\\nby her husband and he was granted legal dominion over\\neverything. Id. Therefore, if a married couple purchased\\nproperty, it could not be owned by the husband and wife\\nbecause both spouses were considered a single legal entity (the\\nhusband). Id. Tenancy by the entirety was created so spouses\\ncould own property jointly and upon the death of one spouse\\nthe property would belong to the surviving spouse. Then,\\n“during the middle and latter part of the nineteenth century,\\nas part of a reform movement aimed at emancipating married\\nwomen from their state of social and economic dependency,\\nthe Married Women’s Property Acts were enacted practically\\nuniversally by the legislatures of the several states.” Id.\\n Following the passage of the Married Women’s Property\\nActs, states splintered in their approach to tenancy by the\\nentirety. Many state courts thought the acts destroyed tenancy\\nby the entirety and a few courts held they were unaffected;\\nseveral state courts gave both spouses the rights of the hus-\\nband under common law and a large number of states found\\nboth spouses had only the limited interests a wife previously\\n\\fNo. 18-2726 7\\n\\nhad under common law. Chinosorn, 243 B.R. at 692–93 (collect-\\ning cases). States also divided over whether tenancy by the\\nentirety encompassed real property and personal property, or\\njust real property. Id. at 693. The Illinois judiciary found that\\nthe state’s Married Women’s Act abolished tenancy by the\\nentirety but, in 1990, the legislature codified tenancy by the\\nentirety for real estate owned by spouses who were using the\\nproperty as their homestead. 765 ILCS 1005/1c.\\n Jurisdictions that recognize tenancy by the entirety,\\nhowever, are not uniform in their approach to creditors’ rights\\nagainst the estate:\\n A creditor’s right to levy on a married person’s\\n property is complex, and varies by state and the\\n type of debt and property. Every state allows\\n satisfaction of a debt which has been jointly\\n incurred by a husband and wife against jointly\\n held property, even if that property is held in a\\n tenancy by the entirety … . Some states allow\\n the satisfaction of an individual spouse’s debt\\n against entireties property, but most do not.\\nCreditors’ Rights Against Entireties Property In and Out of\\nBankruptcy, 1983 Ann. Surv. of Bankr. Law Part II (September\\n1983). With this kaleidoscopic background in mind, we turn\\nto the bankruptcy aspect of this case.\\n A debtor’s bankruptcy estate must include “all legal or\\nequitable interests of the debtor in property as of the com-\\nmencement of the case.” 11 U.S.C. § 541(a). This includes an\\nindividual debtor’s interest in property held as a tenant by the\\nentirety. In re Hunter, 970 F.2d 299, 303 (7th Cir. 1992); Napotnik\\n\\f8 No. 18-2726\\n\\nv. Equibank & Parkvale Savings Association, 679 F.2d 316 (3d Cir.\\n1982). All property in the estate is liquidated by the bankruptcy\\ntrustee and the proceeds are distributed to creditors based on\\ntheir priority. 11 U.S.C. § 704. But the Bankruptcy Code allows\\ndebtors to exempt certain estate property. Exempt property is\\nremoved from the estate and retained by the debtor.\\nSection 522(b)(3)(B) exempts:\\n [a]ny interest in property in which the debtor\\n had, immediately before the commencement of\\n the case, an interest as a tenant by the entirety or\\n joint tenant to the extent that such interest as a\\n tenant by the entirety or joint tenant is exempt\\n from process under applicable nonbankruptcy\\n law.\\nThe law of co-tenancies is almost exclusively a matter of state\\nlaw since there is no general federal property law, therefore,\\nthe “applicable nonbankruptcy law” is Illinois law. The\\nquestion here is to what extent § 522(b)(3)(B) exempts Jaffe’s\\ncontingent future interest in the tenancy property. There is no\\ndispute that a lien that attached to Jaffe’s tenancy interest would\\nbe exempt. However, the nub of this case lies in the exemption\\nof the lesser interests that are not exempted under Illinois law.\\n The district court interpreted § 522(b)(3)(B) to exempt\\nJaffe’s contingent future interest in the entireties property,\\ndespite the fact that Illinois provides no exemption for these\\ninterests. In reaching this conclusion the district court parti-\\ntioned the statutory language into four elements:\\n § 522(b)(3)(B) exempts: (i) any interest in prop-\\n erty; (ii) in which the debtor had an interest as a\\n\\fNo. 18-2726 9\\n\\n tenant in the entirety; (iii) at the time the bank-\\n ruptcy petition was filed; (iv) to the extent that\\n state law exempts an interest as tenant in the\\n entirety from legal process.\\nJaffe v. Williams, No. 1:17-cv-4662, slip op. at *4 (N.D. Ill.\\nMay 22, 2018). The district court noted that Jaffe had an interest\\nas a tenant by the entirety (as well as contingent future\\ninterests) at the time the bankruptcy petition was filed (satisfy-\\ning the first three elements). The district court then concluded\\nthat any interest he held (contingent future interests included)\\nwas exempt to the extent that the tenancy interest was exempt\\nunder Illinois law. And since Illinois exempts the tenancy\\ninterest, more specifically the forced sale of the tenancy\\nproperty to collect a debt against just one tenant, all other\\ninterests Jaffe had as a tenancy by the entirety were exempt\\ncompletely.\\n But the fourth element of the district court’s analysis left\\nout a key word—“such.” Section 522(b)(3)(B) exempts certain\\ninterests “to the extent that such interest as a tenant by the\\nentirety” is exempt under state law. By not giving sufficient\\nweight to the word “such,” the district court interpreted the\\nstatute to mean that any property interest is exempt to the\\nextent that the entirety interest is exempt. But identifying what\\n“such” refers to is the main interpretive issue in this case. If\\n“such” refers just to “any interest,” as Jaffe argues, the district\\ncourt’s conclusion is correct because the statute would exempt\\n“any interest” the debtor had to the extent that any tenancy\\ninterest is exempt from state law. However, if “such interest”\\nrefers to something more limited, like the precise interests the\\n\\f10 No. 18-2726\\n\\ndebtor was seeking to exempt, the district court’s interpreta-\\ntion is incorrect.\\n Section 522(b)(3)(B) begins broadly by stating it exempts\\n“any interest in property.” The provision goes on to state that\\nthe debtor must have an interest in the property “as a tenant by\\nthe entirety” in order to claim an exemption, thus cabining “any\\ninterest in property.” This means that if, for example, a tenant\\nby the entirety transferred her interest in the income the\\nproperty generated, the transferee could not claim an exemp-\\ntion under § 522(b)(3)(B) since she does not hold the interest as\\na tenant by the entirety. The provision goes on to state that the\\nexemption applies “to the extent that such interests as a tenant\\nby the entirety,” meaning the precise interests that the debtor\\nholds as a tenant by the entirety, are exempt under state law.\\n We read this provision to establish two things. First, the\\nopening language indicates the interests that may qualify for\\nexemptions—any interest the debtor has, so long as she holds\\nthat interest as a tenant by the entirety. The provision then\\ndefines which of those qualifying interests are exempt—all of\\nthe debtor’s qualifying interests to the extent that they are\\nexempt under applicable nonbankruptcy law. Our reading of\\nthe statute yields a simple result—interests a debtor holds as\\na tenant by the entirety are exempt to the extent that those\\ninterests the debtor holds as a tenant by the entirety are exempt\\nunder state law.\\n The statutory language does not support the argument that\\n“such interest as a tenant by the entirety” is referring more\\nbroadly to “any interest in property” as Jaffe argues. It is much\\nmore sensible to read “such interest” as referring to the\\n\\fNo. 18-2726 11\\n\\ncomplete introductory phrase, which identifies the debtor’s\\nspecific interests that potentially qualify for an exemption.\\nAdditionally, the signifier (“such interest”) and referent\\n(“interest as a tenant by the entirety”) use mirroring language\\nindicating that the latter is referring to the former: “property in\\nwhich the debtor had … an interest as a tenant by the entirety …\\nto the extent that such interest as a tenant by the entirety” is\\nexempt. This buttresses the conclusion that “such interest” was\\nmeant to refer to the specific interests that the debtor held as a\\ntenant by the entirety, rather than only referring to “any\\ninterest.”\\n Given the variety of rights, interests, and exemptions in\\ntenancy by the entirety, it is likely that Congress enacted\\n§ 522(b)(3)(B) to reflect the full spectrum of different ap-\\nproaches states have taken. See Chinosorn, 243 B.R. at 700 (“the\\napparent intent of the provision is to provide, in bankruptcy,\\na level of protection from claims of creditors identical to the\\nprotection that owners of entireties property would have in\\ncollection proceedings outside of bankruptcy, under applicable\\nstate law.”). “Any interest in property in which the debtor\\nhad … an interest” is broad, inclusive language that signals\\nthat all state exemptions for tenants by the entirety will be\\nhonored in federal bankruptcy court. But the district court’s\\nreading would mean that no matter how nuanced state\\nexemptions for tenants by the entirety are, all interests would\\nbe exempt if the state exempts the entirety interest. This means\\nthat if Illinois decided to explicitly exempt the contingent\\nfuture interests that Williams’s lien attached to, such an\\nexemption would be given no effect by a bankruptcy statute\\n\\f12 No. 18-2726\\n\\nthat relies on state law. This interpretation leads to an absurd\\nresult and could not be what Congress intended.\\n Additionally, our reading of the statute is in line with each\\nof our sister circuits that have considered the issue. While it\\ndoes not appear that those cases involved arguments by the\\nparties that required similar exegesis of the statutory text, the\\nfact that the no party argued otherwise implies that the statute\\nis naturally read as we read it today. See e.g., In re Arango, 992\\nF.2d 611, 613 (6th Cir. 1993) (“[W]e must first look to Tennessee\\nlaw to classify Arango’s interests in entireties property. We\\nthen determine which of those interest is exempt from his\\nbankruptcy estate by determining whether each particular\\ninterest is subject to execution under Tennessee law” (emphasis\\nadded)); Ragsdale v. Genesco, Inc., 674 F.2d 277, 239 (4th Cir.\\n1982) (“The phrase ‘to the extent such interest … is exempt\\nfrom process under applicable nonbankruptcy law’ is of\\ndecisive importance. If the Ragsdales’ residential real property\\ncould be reached to satisfy a state court judgment in Virginia,\\nit could not be successfully claimed as exempt”); Napotnik v.\\nEquibank & Parkvale Sav. Ass’n, 679 F.2d 316 , 322–23 (3d Cir.\\n1982) (“Since the debtor’s interest in the real property owned\\nwith his wife as tenants by the entirety is not exempt from\\nprocess in Pennsylvania because they are joint obligors, he is\\nnot entitled to exempt that portion of his equity subject to\\nEquibank’s judicial lien, and cannot avoid that lien under\\nSection 522(f)”).\\n Here, Williams obtained a judgment lien on Jaffe’s contin-\\ngent future interest that existed when Jaffe filed his bankruptcy\\npetition. The first determination that must be made is whether\\nJaffe’s interest is the kind that potentially qualifies for an\\n\\fNo. 18-2726 13\\n\\nexemption under § 522(b)(3)(B). Any interest can qualify so\\nlong as it is an interest one holds “as a tenant by the entirety.”\\nJaffe held his interest as a tenant by the entirety so we must\\ndetermine whether the interest is exempt. This requires looking\\nto Illinois law to determine whether contingent future interests\\nare exempt from process.\\n The main protection that Illinois law provides tenants by\\nthe entirety is that a creditor is unable to force the sale of the\\nproperty to collect a debt against only one of the tenants. 735\\nILCS 5/12-112 (2014). Illinois law does not make all interests\\nheld by tenants by the entirety immune from process and we\\nneed not look hard for a state that does—Indiana law exempts\\n“any interest the judgment has in real estate as a tenant by the\\nentireties.” Ind. Code § 34-2-28-1(a)(5); In re Paeplow, 972 F.2d\\n730, 737 (7th Cir. 1992). Illinois law explicitly refuses to exempt\\nincome from entirety properties and fails to provide an\\nexemption for the contingent future interests. 765 ILCS 1005/1c;\\nsee also Yotis, 518 B.R. at 489–90 (holding that “any future\\ninterest that may be held by either tenant alone, such as the\\ncontingent future interest, is not exempt at all”). Accordingly,\\nwe find that Jaffe is not entitled to an exemption of his contin-\\ngent future interest. The district court’s conclusion otherwise\\nwas erroneous.\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n Because the statute exempts an individual’s tenancy\\ninterest to the extent that state law exempts that interest, we\\nreverse the decision of the district court and remand for further\\nproceedings consistent with this opinion.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3791,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4645818,"string":"4,645,818"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"Patrick J. DOHERTY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, as Receiver for Washington Federal Bank for Savings, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Doherty v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp."},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-08-06"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-3133"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Flaum, Kanne, Scudder\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"Michael Stephen Kanne\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-3133\\nPATRICK J. DOHERTY,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n v.\\n\\nFEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, as receiver for\\nWASHINGTON FEDERAL BANK FOR SAVINGS, et al.,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 18 CV 703 — Joan B. Gottschall, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED MAY 14, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 6, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before FLAUM, KANNE, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.\\n KANNE, Circuit Judge. Washington Federal Bank brought a\\ndefault action against Patrick Doherty, John Farano, Jr., and\\nWorth Conversion, LLC, for notes related to various real es-\\ntate ventures. Doherty raised affirmative defenses on behalf\\nof himself and Worth, but the bank dismissed Doherty and\\nWorth from the action, without prejudice, after obtaining a\\ndefault judgment against Farano. Doherty then attempted to\\n\\f2 No. 18-3133\\n\\nbring this suit against the bank with claims founded on simi-\\nlar grounds as his previously-raised affirmative defenses. But\\nthe Cook County Circuit Court determined that Doherty’s\\nclaims were barred by res judicata thanks to the default judg-\\nment entered against Farano. Doherty appealed to the Illinois\\nAppellate Court, but before his appeal was heard, Washing-\\nton Federal was placed into the Federal Deposit Insurance\\nCorporation’s receivership. The FDIC removed this action to\\nthe district court, which adopted the Illinois Circuit Court’s\\ndecision. Because res judicata does not bar Doherty’s claims,\\nwe vacate and remand for further proceedings.\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n Patrick Doherty and John Farano, Jr., formed Worth Con-\\nversion, LLC. In April 2006, Washington Federal Bank (“the\\nbank”) loaned Worth $400,000 in exchange for Worth’s prom-\\nissory note and Doherty and Farano’s personal guaranties of\\nthe loan. Washington Federal extended the maturity date of\\nthe loan multiple times, but Worth eventually defaulted. The\\nbank subsequently sued Worth, Farano, and Doherty in Cook\\nCounty Circuit Court in March 2014 (the guaranty action).\\nThe twenty-seven count complaint also included counts re-\\nlated to other loans made to another entity affiliated with\\nFarano and Doherty, F & D Services, Inc. But the bank even-\\ntually dismissed those counts and F & D Services from the\\nsuit.\\n Doherty is an attorney and he filed an appearance in the\\nguaranty action on behalf of himself and Worth. In his answer\\nto the bank’s complaint, Doherty raised affirmative defenses,\\nincluding that the bank extended the maturity date of the loan\\n\\fNo. 18-3133 3\\n\\nwithout authorization, that the bank charged fees and an in-\\nterest rate not agreed upon, and that the bank charged exces-\\nsive fees.\\n Farano never appeared, however, and the trial court en-\\ntered a default judgment for the loan balance against Farano\\nfor Count XXVI, which sought judgment on his personal\\nguaranty of the loan, on August 27, 2014. The default judg-\\nment ordered:\\n 1. [Washington Federal’s] Motion for Default and\\n Judgment is granted; 2. [The bank] has proven the\\n damages it incurred and reasonable attorney’s fees\\n and costs; 3. Judgment is entered in favor of [the\\n bank] and against Defendant John Farano Jr., in the\\n TOTAL AMOUNT of $228,739.81 due under the\\n Note; $2,804.50 due in attorney fees and $485.33 in\\n legal costs; 4. There is no just reason to delay the en-\\n forcement of the judgment, appeal, or both.\\n On April 27, 2015, Doherty received a report from a foren-\\nsic document examiner opining that his signature had been\\nforged on loan extension paperwork in 2010. Doherty sent a\\ncopy of the report to the bank’s counsel, advising them that\\nhe intended to file a suit for fraud and other claims. Around\\nthat time, the bank moved the trial court to dismiss its claims\\nagainst Worth and Doherty from the action without preju-\\ndice. The trial court dismissed the bank’s remaining counts\\n(XXV—seeking judgment against Worth on default; and\\nXXVII—seeking judgment against Doherty on his guaranty of\\nthe Worth loan) on June 15, 2015. Doherty did not object to\\nthis order.\\n Over a year later, on June 28, 2016, Doherty filed suit\\nagainst the bank, its president, its corporate secretary, and its\\n\\f4 No. 18-3133\\n\\nattorneys, alleging breach of contract, forgery, excessive fees,\\nfraud, and legal malpractice against the bank’s law firm. He\\nclaimed that during the first trial (the guaranty action), he did\\nnot learn of the bank’s alleged forgery early enough to take\\naction before being dismissed. His suit sought to recover\\ndamages for the fees he incurred defending the guaranty ac-\\ntion. The trial court dismissed Doherty’s complaint, and he\\nfiled an amended complaint alleging the same facts and\\ncounts, but he alleged malicious prosecution instead of mal-\\npractice against the bank’s legal counsel.\\n The bank and its attorneys moved to dismiss Doherty’s\\namended complaint on the grounds of res judicata, lack of\\nstanding, and (on the malicious prosecution count) failure to\\nstate a claim. The trial court dismissed Doherty’s suit, holding\\nthat most of Doherty’s claims were barred by res judicata be-\\ncause he should have brought them in the guaranty action.\\nThe trial court also determined that he failed to state a claim\\nfor malicious prosecution. Doherty appealed to the Illinois\\nAppellate Court. Before the court heard Doherty’s appeal,\\nhowever, Washington Federal was placed into the FDIC’s re-\\nceivership. The FDIC removed this action to the Northern\\nDistrict of Illinois under 12 U.S.C. § 1819(b)(2)(B).\\n II. ANALYSIS\\n The district court adopted the Illinois trial court’s ruling as\\nits own. We therefore review the Illinois trial court’s decision\\nand analyze this appeal under Illinois law. Baek v. Clausen, 886\\nF.3d 652, 660 (7th Cir. 2018). On appeal, Doherty claims that\\nthe trial court erroneously dismissed his claims on the basis\\nof res judicata. His main point seems to be that the bank’s use\\nof Farano’s default judgment to defeat Doherty’s claims trans-\\nformed res judicata from a shield into a sword. In other words,\\n\\fNo. 18-3133 5\\n\\nby holding that Doherty’s claims were barred, the district\\ncourt effectively allowed the bank to kill Doherty’s fraud\\nclaims. The bank argues that the trial court correctly deter-\\nmined that res judicata barred Doherty’s claims, but even if it\\ndoes not, Doherty’s claims should be alternatively dismissed\\nfor failure to state a claim.\\n “Whether a claim is barred by res judicata is a question of\\nlaw that we review de novo.” Curtis v. Lofy, 914 N.E.2d 248, 254\\n(Ill. App. Ct. 2009). “The party asserting res judicata as a pre-\\nclusion to the second action bears the burden of showing with\\nclarity and certainty what was determined by the prior judg-\\nment.” BankFinancial, FSB v. Tandon, 2013 IL App (1st) 113152,\\n¶ 19.\\n A. Counterclaims and Affirmative Defenses in Illinois Civil\\n Procedure\\n A brief primer on Illinois civil procedure will help clarify\\nthe nature of Doherty’s argument. The Illinois rules provide\\nthat a “plaintiff may, at any time before trial or hearing be-\\ngins, upon notice to each party who has appeared or each\\nsuch party’s attorney, and upon payment of costs, dismiss his\\nor her action or any part thereof as to any defendant, without\\nprejudice, by order filed in the cause.” 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/2-\\n1009(a). “[A] dismissal ‘without prejudice’ signals that there\\nwas no final decision on the merits and that the plaintiff is not\\nbarred from refiling the action.” Richter v. Prairie Farms Dairy,\\nInc., 2016 IL 119518, ¶ 24. The rule also stipulates that a plain-\\ntiff’s dismissal of its claims against a defendant “does not dis-\\nmiss a pending counterclaim or third party complaint.” 735\\nIll. Comp. Stat. 5/2-1009(d). Illinois courts have held that a vol-\\nuntary dismissal by the plaintiff is an appealable order. Du-\\nbina v. Mesirow Realty Dev., Inc., 687 N.E.2d 871, 874–75 (Ill.\\n\\f6 No. 18-3133\\n\\n1997) (a voluntary dismissal terminates an action in its en-\\ntirety and renders all final orders immediately appealable).\\n Doherty’s claims were styled as affirmative defenses, not\\nas counterclaims. That was probably because, under Illinois\\ncivil procedure, a defendant must raise affirmative defenses in\\nthe answer or reply. See 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/2-613(d). Con-\\nversely, counterclaims are permissive in Illinois and can be\\nbrought in their own action. See 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/2-608.\\nSee Laue v. Leifheit, 473 N.E.2d 939, 943 (Ill. 1984) (describing\\nthat section 2–608’s language should be construed as estab-\\nlishing permissive counterclaims).\\n B. Res judicata in Illinois\\n “The doctrine of res judicata bars the refiling of an action\\npreviously adjudicated on the merits when the action is di-\\nrected against the same parties and involves the same claims.”\\nDeLuna v. Treister, 708 N.E.2d 340, 344 (Ill. 1999) (citing Rein v.\\nDavid A. Noyes & Co., 665 N.E.2d 1199, 1204 (Ill. 1996)). “Res\\njudicata promotes judicial economy by preventing repetitive\\nlitigation and [additionally] protects parties from being\\nforced to bear the unjust burden of relitigating essentially the\\nsame case.” Piagentini v. Ford Motor Co., 901 N.E.2d 986, 990–\\n91 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009) (quoting Arvia v. Madigan, 809 N.E.2d\\n88, 97 (Ill. 2004) (alteration in original)).\\n There are three requirements for res judicata in Illinois: “(1)\\na final judgment on the merits … entered in the first lawsuit\\nby a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) an identity of causes\\nof action exists; (3) the parties or their privies are identical in\\nboth lawsuits.” DeLuna, 708 N.E.2d at 344. “The requirement\\nof a final order or judgment is a ‘critical’ component in show-\\ning the applicability of res judicata.” Richter, 2016 IL 119518 at\\n\\fNo. 18-3133 7\\n\\n¶ 22 (citing Hernandez v. Pritikin, 2012 IL 113054, ¶ 41). And\\nthe Supreme Court of Illinois has explained that “default\\njudgments are always res judicata on the ultimate claim or de-\\nmand presented in the complaint.” Hous. Auth. for La Salle Cty.\\nv. Young Menʹs Christian Assʹn of Ottawa, 461 N.E.2d 959, 963\\n(Ill. 1984).\\n Illinois courts have applied res judicata broadly. “The doc-\\ntrine extends not only to what was actually decided in the\\noriginal action, but also to matters which could have been de-\\ncided in that suit.” Doe v. Gleicher, 911 N.E.2d 532, 537 (Ill. App.\\nCt. 2009) (quoting Rein, 665 N.E.2d at 1204). However,\\n“[e]quity dictates that the doctrine of res judicata will not be\\ntechnically applied if to do so would create inequitable and\\nunjust results. [It] should not be applied … where it would be\\nfundamentally unfair to do so … [and] should only be applied\\nas fairness and justice require.” Piagentini, 901 N.E.2d at 990–\\n91 (citations and quotations omitted). “Although it is recom-\\nmended that the doctrine receive a liberal construction and\\nshould be applied without technical restrictions, it has also\\nbeen recommended that the doctrine should not be applied so\\nrigidly as to defeat the ends of justice.” Fed. Signal Corp. v. SLC\\nTechs., Inc., 743 N.E.2d 1066, 1077 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001) (quoting\\nThornton v. Williams, 412 N.E.2d 157, 159 (Ill. App. Ct. 1980)).\\n C. Doherty’s Claims\\n The Illinois circuit court determined that res judicata\\napplied because the default judgment against Farano\\nconstituted a final judgment on the merits. It stated that\\nidentity of parties existed because the bank named Doherty\\nas a defendant in the guaranty action, and because the bank\\nwas originally the plaintiff in the guaranty action (and the\\nother named defendants were its agents and attorneys). The\\n\\f8 No. 18-3133\\n\\ntrial court determined that identity of causes existed because\\nDoherty raised his affirmative defenses in the guaranty\\naction, and the same underlying facts supporting his\\naffirmative defenses provided the basis for his claims in the\\nlater lawsuit against the bank and its attorneys.\\n The circuit court’s opinion relied on Corcoran-Hakala v.\\nDowd to establish that res judicata bars Doherty’s claims. See\\n840 N.E.2d 286, 293–94 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). In that case, the\\nIllinois Appellate Court explained that the common law\\nprinciple of compulsory counterclaim applies in some\\ninstances in Illinois, even though the statutorily-established\\nrules of civil procedure explicitly hold that counterclaims are\\npermissive: “res judicata bars a subsequent action if successful\\nprosecution of that action would in effect nullify the judgment\\nentered in the initial action.” Id. at 294 (citing Restatement\\n(Second) of Judgments § 22(2)(b) (1982)); Carey v. Neal, Cortina\\n& Associates, 576 N.E.2d 220, 225 (Ill. App. Ct. 1991)\\n(describing subsection 22(2)(b) of the Restatement as a\\n“common law rule of compulsory counterclaim”). This is true\\nif “the defendant’s claim involves the same operative facts as\\nthe plaintiff’s claim.” Id. at 293–94 (citing Torcasso v. Standard\\nOutdoor Sales, Inc., 597 N.E.2d 772, 775 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992),\\nrevʹd on other grounds, 626 N.E.2d 225 (Ill. 1993)).\\n We conclude that res judicata should not apply in this case\\nfor two main reasons. First, none of the Illinois cases relied on\\nby the circuit court or the FDIC address a situation like this\\none. And the most illuminating cases—if not exactly square\\nwith the posture of this case—suggest that applying the\\ndoctrine would be inappropriate. Second, applying the\\ndoctrine in this situation neither advances the purposes of res\\n\\fNo. 18-3133 9\\n\\njudicata nor meaningfully serves the interests of judicial\\neconomy.\\n Illinois case law does not support an application of the\\ndoctrine in these circumstances. Two wrinkles in this case\\ncomplicate the typical res judicata analysis and lead us to\\nconclude that the doctrine should not apply here. First, most\\nof the cases addressing res judicata in Illinois involve a\\nsituation in which a plaintiff in the first action attempts to\\nbring the same or similar claims in a later action—not a\\nsituation in which a defendant to the first action brings\\naffirmative defenses as independent claims in the second\\naction. Second, the default judgment applied to a different\\ndefendant.1\\n The FDIC responds to Doherty’s arguments on appeal by\\ndirecting our attention to the broad and liberal application of\\nres judicata found throughout Illinois case law. Doherty\\nargues that because the circuit court dismissed him without\\nprejudice on the bank’s section 2-1009 motion in the guaranty\\naction, res judicata should therefore not apply. The FDIC relies\\non Rein for the proposition that even though the final\\njudgment on the merits did not apply to all the claims in the\\nguaranty action, res judicata still applies. But Rein involved a\\ncase where, in the first action, plaintiffs received a dismissal\\nwith prejudice on some of their claims and voluntarily\\ndismissed their remaining claims pursuant to section 2-1009.\\n665 N.E.2d at 1205. They later re-filed those claims in a second\\n\\n 1 The FDIC does give examples of cases in which a defendant in the\\nfirst action attempts to bring claims that would have been suitable for an\\naffirmative defense in a later action, but this second factor distinguishes\\nthem. See, e.g., Henry v. Farmer City State Bank, 808 F.2d 1228, 1235 (7th Cir.\\n1986).\\n\\f10 No. 18-3133\\n\\naction, engaging in the classic claim-splitting that res judicata\\nattempts to prevent. Id. at 1206. Here, Doherty neither made\\na section 2-1009 motion nor had a final judgment that\\naddressed any of the bank’s claims as they pertained to him\\nor his defenses.\\n And although we have found no case that directly applies\\nto this situation, a string of Illinois cases leads us to conclude\\nthat the doctrine should not apply here. “The Illinois Supreme\\nCourt has held that if the basis of dismissal against one party\\nbears no relationship to the merits of the case, it is\\n‘inappropriate to apply the doctrine of res judicata [against]\\nanother party to the action.’” Curtis, 914 N.E.2d at 260\\n(quoting Downing v. Chicago Transit Auth,, 642 N.E.2d 456, 460\\n(Ill. 1994)). In Downing the Supreme Court of Illinois held that\\nan order that granted summary judgment in favor of an\\nemployee on statute-of-limitations grounds did not preclude\\na later suit based on a respondeat superior theory against his\\nemployer because the summary judgment order was not\\nbased on the merits of the case. According to the court, to label\\na summary judgment order based on the statute of limitations\\nas “an adjudication on the merits would be the quintessential\\nact of exalting form over substance.” 642 N.E.2d at 460.\\n Similarly, in DeLuna v. Treister, the court refused to apply\\nres judicata in a medical malpractice case for a defendant\\nhospital after its doctor obtained an involuntary dismissal\\ndue to the plaintiff’s failure to meet statutory pleading\\nrequirements. 708 N.E.2d at 348–49. The involuntary\\ndismissal with prejudice barred the plaintiff’s subsequent\\naction against the doctor, but not the hospital. Id.\\n In Leow v. A & B Freight Line, Inc., the court addressed the\\nproper interpretation of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 273,\\n\\fNo. 18-3133 11\\n\\nwhich explains the effects of involuntary dismissals. 676\\nN.E.2d 1284, 1286 (Ill. 1997). The court determined that an\\ninvoluntary dismissal against a different party acted as an\\nadjudication on the merits against another party only where\\n“the prior dismissal must have caused the defendant to\\nprepare to address the actual merits of plaintiff’s claim.”\\nDeLuna, 708 N.E.2d at 347 (quotations omitted). See Leow, 676\\nN.E.2d at 1288.\\n The FDIC attempts to distinguish these cases because this\\ncase involves neither involuntary dismissal nor vicarious lia-\\nbility for employers. And, as we have noted, default judg-\\nments are typically considered final judgments on the merits\\nfor the purposes of res judicata. Hous. Auth. for La Salle Cty., 461\\nN.E.2d at 963.\\n But we believe the principles of equity underlying this\\nstring of cases may be applied here. In the guaranty action,\\nDoherty appeared, filed a response, and raised his affirmative\\ndefenses against the bank’s claims. After obtaining its default\\njudgment against Farano—and shortly after Doherty received\\nthe handwriting expert’s report and threatened to bring a suit\\nfor fraud—the bank dropped its claims against Worth and\\nDoherty and dismissed those defendants without prejudice.\\nThis posture ensured that the bank never had to address or\\ndefend itself against Doherty’s fraud allegations.\\nAccordingly, because the bank never had to address (and the\\ncircuit court likewise never had to consider) Doherty’s fraud\\nclaims, we do not believe the default judgment against a\\ndifferent defendant barred Doherty’s later action.\\n Applying res judicata in this situation also does not\\nadvance the purposes of the doctrine. One of those purposes\\nis to prevent a second litigation from undermining the prior\\n\\f12 No. 18-3133\\n\\njudgment. See Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 22(2)(b)\\n(1982) (explaining that a defendant who fails to interpose a\\npermissible counterclaim in an action is precluded from\\nbringing a subsequent action on that claim if the claim’s\\nsuccessful prosecution “would nullify the initial judgment or\\nwould impair rights established in the initial action”). The\\nFDIC argues that if Doherty were to succeed on his claims of\\nfraud, it could undermine the circuit court’s conclusion that\\nWorth owed money to the bank and that Farano defaulted on\\nhis personal guaranty of the Worth loan. We find that\\nargument unpersuasive. The FDIC provides no explanation\\nfor how Doherty would have standing to challenge Farano’s\\ndefault judgment. And at oral argument, Doherty himself\\neven conceded that he likely has no standing to challenge the\\ndefault judgment against Farano.\\n Additionally, Doherty’s action here seeks redress for the\\nbank’s alleged fraud but does not challenge the default\\njudgment entered against Farano. Even if Doherty manages\\nto prosecute this action successfully, the default judgment\\nagainst Farano would go undisturbed. Therefore, the bank’s\\ninterest in the previous litigation—its judgment against\\nFarano—would remain in place.\\n Similarly, as explained above, preventing claim splitting\\nserves as one of the ends of applying res judicata. However,\\nthat concern is not implicated in a case like this, where\\nDoherty was a defendant and did not dismiss the first action\\nhimself. See Rein, 665 N.E.2d at 1206 (“[P]laintiffs generally\\nare not permitted to split their causes of action. The rule\\nagainst claim-splitting, which is an aspect of the law of\\npreclusion, prohibits a plaintiff from suing for part of a claim\\n\\fNo. 18-3133 13\\n\\nin one action and then suing for the remainder in another\\naction.”).\\n Nor are concerns about judicial economy implicated by\\nallowing Doherty’s claims to proceed. In this case the circuit\\ncourt never considered or weighed in on Doherty’s fraud\\nclaims because the bank dismissed him without prejudice.\\nThe bank never had to litigate these claims in the guaranty\\naction—addressing them now will not force the bank into\\nredundant litigation.\\n Lastly, the FDIC encourages us to affirm the circuit court’s\\ndismissal of Doherty’s claims on the alternative grounds that\\nhis complaint fails to state a claim. Because neither the Illinois\\ntrial court nor the district court have engaged Doherty’s\\narguments, we decline to do so now. The district court should\\nhave the first opportunity to consider that question.\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n Based on the foregoing, the circuit court incorrectly deter-\\nmined that Doherty’s claims were barred by res judicata. Ac-\\ncordingly, we REVERSE the district court’s dismissal of\\nDoherty’s claims and REMAND for further proceedings.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4423071/\", \"author_raw\": \"Michael Stephen Kanne\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"FLAUM"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"KANNE"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"SCUDDER"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645818/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":8,"string":"8"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Patrick J. DOHERTY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, as Receiver for Washington Federal Bank for Savings, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-08-06\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-3133\nPATRICK J. DOHERTY,\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\n v.\n\nFEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, as receiver for\nWASHINGTON FEDERAL BANK FOR SAVINGS, et al.,\n Defendants-Appellees.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\n No. 18 CV 703 — Joan B. Gottschall, Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED MAY 14, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 6, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before FLAUM, KANNE, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.\n KANNE, Circuit Judge. Washington Federal Bank brought a\ndefault action against Patrick Doherty, John Farano, Jr., and\nWorth Conversion, LLC, for notes related to various real es-\ntate ventures. Doherty raised affirmative defenses on behalf\nof himself and Worth, but the bank dismissed Doherty and\nWorth from the action, without prejudice, after obtaining a\ndefault judgment against Farano. Doherty then attempted to\n\f2 No. 18-3133\n\nbring this suit against the bank with claims founded on simi-\nlar grounds as his previously-raised affirmative defenses. But\nthe Cook County Circuit Court determined that Doherty’s\nclaims were barred by res judicata thanks to the default judg-\nment entered against Farano. Doherty appealed to the Illinois\nAppellate Court, but before his appeal was heard, Washing-\nton Federal was placed into the Federal Deposit Insurance\nCorporation’s receivership. The FDIC removed this action to\nthe district court, which adopted the Illinois Circuit Court’s\ndecision. Because res judicata does not bar Doherty’s claims,\nwe vacate and remand for further proceedings.\n I. BACKGROUND\n Patrick Doherty and John Farano, Jr., formed Worth Con-\nversion, LLC. In April 2006, Washington Federal Bank (“the\nbank”) loaned Worth $400,000 in exchange for Worth’s prom-\nissory note and Doherty and Farano’s personal guaranties of\nthe loan. Washington Federal extended the maturity date of\nthe loan multiple times, but Worth eventually defaulted. The\nbank subsequently sued Worth, Farano, and Doherty in Cook\nCounty Circuit Court in March 2014 (the guaranty action).\nThe twenty-seven count complaint also included counts re-\nlated to other loans made to another entity affiliated with\nFarano and Doherty, F & D Services, Inc. But the bank even-\ntually dismissed those counts and F & D Services from the\nsuit.\n Doherty is an attorney and he filed an appearance in the\nguaranty action on behalf of himself and Worth. In his answer\nto the bank’s complaint, Doherty raised affirmative defenses,\nincluding that the bank extended the maturity date of the loan\n\fNo. 18-3133 3\n\nwithout authorization, that the bank charged fees and an in-\nterest rate not agreed upon, and that the bank charged exces-\nsive fees.\n Farano never appeared, however, and the trial court en-\ntered a default judgment for the loan balance against Farano\nfor Count XXVI, which sought judgment on his personal\nguaranty of the loan, on August 27, 2014. The default judg-\nment ordered:\n 1. [Washington Federal’s] Motion for Default and\n Judgment is granted; 2. [The bank] has proven the\n damages it incurred and reasonable attorney’s fees\n and costs; 3. Judgment is entered in favor of [the\n bank] and against Defendant John Farano Jr., in the\n TOTAL AMOUNT of $228,739.81 due under the\n Note; $2,804.50 due in attorney fees and $485.33 in\n legal costs; 4. There is no just reason to delay the en-\n forcement of the judgment, appeal, or both.\n On April 27, 2015, Doherty received a report from a foren-\nsic document examiner opining that his signature had been\nforged on loan extension paperwork in 2010. Doherty sent a\ncopy of the report to the bank’s counsel, advising them that\nhe intended to file a suit for fraud and other claims. Around\nthat time, the bank moved the trial court to dismiss its claims\nagainst Worth and Doherty from the action without preju-\ndice. The trial court dismissed the bank’s remaining counts\n(XXV—seeking judgment against Worth on default; and\nXXVII—seeking judgment against Doherty on his guaranty of\nthe Worth loan) on June 15, 2015. Doherty did not object to\nthis order.\n Over a year later, on June 28, 2016, Doherty filed suit\nagainst the bank, its president, its corporate secretary, and its\n\f4 No. 18-3133\n\nattorneys, alleging breach of contract, forgery, excessive fees,\nfraud, and legal malpractice against the bank’s law firm. He\nclaimed that during the first trial (the guaranty action), he did\nnot learn of the bank’s alleged forgery early enough to take\naction before being dismissed. His suit sought to recover\ndamages for the fees he incurred defending the guaranty ac-\ntion. The trial court dismissed Doherty’s complaint, and he\nfiled an amended complaint alleging the same facts and\ncounts, but he alleged malicious prosecution instead of mal-\npractice against the bank’s legal counsel.\n The bank and its attorneys moved to dismiss Doherty’s\namended complaint on the grounds of res judicata, lack of\nstanding, and (on the malicious prosecution count) failure to\nstate a claim. The trial court dismissed Doherty’s suit, holding\nthat most of Doherty’s claims were barred by res judicata be-\ncause he should have brought them in the guaranty action.\nThe trial court also determined that he failed to state a claim\nfor malicious prosecution. Doherty appealed to the Illinois\nAppellate Court. Before the court heard Doherty’s appeal,\nhowever, Washington Federal was placed into the FDIC’s re-\nceivership. The FDIC removed this action to the Northern\nDistrict of Illinois under 12 U.S.C. § 1819(b)(2)(B).\n II. ANALYSIS\n The district court adopted the Illinois trial court’s ruling as\nits own. We therefore review the Illinois trial court’s decision\nand analyze this appeal under Illinois law. Baek v. Clausen, 886\nF.3d 652, 660 (7th Cir. 2018). On appeal, Doherty claims that\nthe trial court erroneously dismissed his claims on the basis\nof res judicata. His main point seems to be that the bank’s use\nof Farano’s default judgment to defeat Doherty’s claims trans-\nformed res judicata from a shield into a sword. In other words,\n\fNo. 18-3133 5\n\nby holding that Doherty’s claims were barred, the district\ncourt effectively allowed the bank to kill Doherty’s fraud\nclaims. The bank argues that the trial court correctly deter-\nmined that res judicata barred Doherty’s claims, but even if it\ndoes not, Doherty’s claims should be alternatively dismissed\nfor failure to state a claim.\n “Whether a claim is barred by res judicata is a question of\nlaw that we review de novo.” Curtis v. Lofy, 914 N.E.2d 248, 254\n(Ill. App. Ct. 2009). “The party asserting res judicata as a pre-\nclusion to the second action bears the burden of showing with\nclarity and certainty what was determined by the prior judg-\nment.” BankFinancial, FSB v. Tandon, 2013 IL App (1st) 113152,\n¶ 19.\n A. Counterclaims and Affirmative Defenses in Illinois Civil\n Procedure\n A brief primer on Illinois civil procedure will help clarify\nthe nature of Doherty’s argument. The Illinois rules provide\nthat a “plaintiff may, at any time before trial or hearing be-\ngins, upon notice to each party who has appeared or each\nsuch party’s attorney, and upon payment of costs, dismiss his\nor her action or any part thereof as to any defendant, without\nprejudice, by order filed in the cause.” 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/2-\n1009(a). “[A] dismissal ‘without prejudice’ signals that there\nwas no final decision on the merits and that the plaintiff is not\nbarred from refiling the action.” Richter v. Prairie Farms Dairy,\nInc., 2016 IL 119518, ¶ 24. The rule also stipulates that a plain-\ntiff’s dismissal of its claims against a defendant “does not dis-\nmiss a pending counterclaim or third party complaint.” 735\nIll. Comp. Stat. 5/2-1009(d). Illinois courts have held that a vol-\nuntary dismissal by the plaintiff is an appealable order. Du-\nbina v. Mesirow Realty Dev., Inc., 687 N.E.2d 871, 874–75 (Ill.\n\f6 No. 18-3133\n\n1997) (a voluntary dismissal terminates an action in its en-\ntirety and renders all final orders immediately appealable).\n Doherty’s claims were styled as affirmative defenses, not\nas counterclaims. That was probably because, under Illinois\ncivil procedure, a defendant must raise affirmative defenses in\nthe answer or reply. See 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/2-613(d). Con-\nversely, counterclaims are permissive in Illinois and can be\nbrought in their own action. See 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/2-608.\nSee Laue v. Leifheit, 473 N.E.2d 939, 943 (Ill. 1984) (describing\nthat section 2–608’s language should be construed as estab-\nlishing permissive counterclaims).\n B. Res judicata in Illinois\n “The doctrine of res judicata bars the refiling of an action\npreviously adjudicated on the merits when the action is di-\nrected against the same parties and involves the same claims.”\nDeLuna v. Treister, 708 N.E.2d 340, 344 (Ill. 1999) (citing Rein v.\nDavid A. Noyes & Co., 665 N.E.2d 1199, 1204 (Ill. 1996)). “Res\njudicata promotes judicial economy by preventing repetitive\nlitigation and [additionally] protects parties from being\nforced to bear the unjust burden of relitigating essentially the\nsame case.” Piagentini v. Ford Motor Co., 901 N.E.2d 986, 990–\n91 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009) (quoting Arvia v. Madigan, 809 N.E.2d\n88, 97 (Ill. 2004) (alteration in original)).\n There are three requirements for res judicata in Illinois: “(1)\na final judgment on the merits … entered in the first lawsuit\nby a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) an identity of causes\nof action exists; (3) the parties or their privies are identical in\nboth lawsuits.” DeLuna, 708 N.E.2d at 344. “The requirement\nof a final order or judgment is a ‘critical’ component in show-\ning the applicability of res judicata.” Richter, 2016 IL 119518 at\n\fNo. 18-3133 7\n\n¶ 22 (citing Hernandez v. Pritikin, 2012 IL 113054, ¶ 41). And\nthe Supreme Court of Illinois has explained that “default\njudgments are always res judicata on the ultimate claim or de-\nmand presented in the complaint.” Hous. Auth. for La Salle Cty.\nv. Young Menʹs Christian Assʹn of Ottawa, 461 N.E.2d 959, 963\n(Ill. 1984).\n Illinois courts have applied res judicata broadly. “The doc-\ntrine extends not only to what was actually decided in the\noriginal action, but also to matters which could have been de-\ncided in that suit.” Doe v. Gleicher, 911 N.E.2d 532, 537 (Ill. App.\nCt. 2009) (quoting Rein, 665 N.E.2d at 1204). However,\n“[e]quity dictates that the doctrine of res judicata will not be\ntechnically applied if to do so would create inequitable and\nunjust results. [It] should not be applied … where it would be\nfundamentally unfair to do so … [and] should only be applied\nas fairness and justice require.” Piagentini, 901 N.E.2d at 990–\n91 (citations and quotations omitted). “Although it is recom-\nmended that the doctrine receive a liberal construction and\nshould be applied without technical restrictions, it has also\nbeen recommended that the doctrine should not be applied so\nrigidly as to defeat the ends of justice.” Fed. Signal Corp. v. SLC\nTechs., Inc., 743 N.E.2d 1066, 1077 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001) (quoting\nThornton v. Williams, 412 N.E.2d 157, 159 (Ill. App. Ct. 1980)).\n C. Doherty’s Claims\n The Illinois circuit court determined that res judicata\napplied because the default judgment against Farano\nconstituted a final judgment on the merits. It stated that\nidentity of parties existed because the bank named Doherty\nas a defendant in the guaranty action, and because the bank\nwas originally the plaintiff in the guaranty action (and the\nother named defendants were its agents and attorneys). The\n\f8 No. 18-3133\n\ntrial court determined that identity of causes existed because\nDoherty raised his affirmative defenses in the guaranty\naction, and the same underlying facts supporting his\naffirmative defenses provided the basis for his claims in the\nlater lawsuit against the bank and its attorneys.\n The circuit court’s opinion relied on Corcoran-Hakala v.\nDowd to establish that res judicata bars Doherty’s claims. See\n840 N.E.2d 286, 293–94 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). In that case, the\nIllinois Appellate Court explained that the common law\nprinciple of compulsory counterclaim applies in some\ninstances in Illinois, even though the statutorily-established\nrules of civil procedure explicitly hold that counterclaims are\npermissive: “res judicata bars a subsequent action if successful\nprosecution of that action would in effect nullify the judgment\nentered in the initial action.” Id. at 294 (citing Restatement\n(Second) of Judgments § 22(2)(b) (1982)); Carey v. Neal, Cortina\n& Associates, 576 N.E.2d 220, 225 (Ill. App. Ct. 1991)\n(describing subsection 22(2)(b) of the Restatement as a\n“common law rule of compulsory counterclaim”). This is true\nif “the defendant’s claim involves the same operative facts as\nthe plaintiff’s claim.” Id. at 293–94 (citing Torcasso v. Standard\nOutdoor Sales, Inc., 597 N.E.2d 772, 775 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992),\nrevʹd on other grounds, 626 N.E.2d 225 (Ill. 1993)).\n We conclude that res judicata should not apply in this case\nfor two main reasons. First, none of the Illinois cases relied on\nby the circuit court or the FDIC address a situation like this\none. And the most illuminating cases—if not exactly square\nwith the posture of this case—suggest that applying the\ndoctrine would be inappropriate. Second, applying the\ndoctrine in this situation neither advances the purposes of res\n\fNo. 18-3133 9\n\njudicata nor meaningfully serves the interests of judicial\neconomy.\n Illinois case law does not support an application of the\ndoctrine in these circumstances. Two wrinkles in this case\ncomplicate the typical res judicata analysis and lead us to\nconclude that the doctrine should not apply here. First, most\nof the cases addressing res judicata in Illinois involve a\nsituation in which a plaintiff in the first action attempts to\nbring the same or similar claims in a later action—not a\nsituation in which a defendant to the first action brings\naffirmative defenses as independent claims in the second\naction. Second, the default judgment applied to a different\ndefendant.1\n The FDIC responds to Doherty’s arguments on appeal by\ndirecting our attention to the broad and liberal application of\nres judicata found throughout Illinois case law. Doherty\nargues that because the circuit court dismissed him without\nprejudice on the bank’s section 2-1009 motion in the guaranty\naction, res judicata should therefore not apply. The FDIC relies\non Rein for the proposition that even though the final\njudgment on the merits did not apply to all the claims in the\nguaranty action, res judicata still applies. But Rein involved a\ncase where, in the first action, plaintiffs received a dismissal\nwith prejudice on some of their claims and voluntarily\ndismissed their remaining claims pursuant to section 2-1009.\n665 N.E.2d at 1205. They later re-filed those claims in a second\n\n 1 The FDIC does give examples of cases in which a defendant in the\nfirst action attempts to bring claims that would have been suitable for an\naffirmative defense in a later action, but this second factor distinguishes\nthem. See, e.g., Henry v. Farmer City State Bank, 808 F.2d 1228, 1235 (7th Cir.\n1986).\n\f10 No. 18-3133\n\naction, engaging in the classic claim-splitting that res judicata\nattempts to prevent. Id. at 1206. Here, Doherty neither made\na section 2-1009 motion nor had a final judgment that\naddressed any of the bank’s claims as they pertained to him\nor his defenses.\n And although we have found no case that directly applies\nto this situation, a string of Illinois cases leads us to conclude\nthat the doctrine should not apply here. “The Illinois Supreme\nCourt has held that if the basis of dismissal against one party\nbears no relationship to the merits of the case, it is\n‘inappropriate to apply the doctrine of res judicata [against]\nanother party to the action.’” Curtis, 914 N.E.2d at 260\n(quoting Downing v. Chicago Transit Auth,, 642 N.E.2d 456, 460\n(Ill. 1994)). In Downing the Supreme Court of Illinois held that\nan order that granted summary judgment in favor of an\nemployee on statute-of-limitations grounds did not preclude\na later suit based on a respondeat superior theory against his\nemployer because the summary judgment order was not\nbased on the merits of the case. According to the court, to label\na summary judgment order based on the statute of limitations\nas “an adjudication on the merits would be the quintessential\nact of exalting form over substance.” 642 N.E.2d at 460.\n Similarly, in DeLuna v. Treister, the court refused to apply\nres judicata in a medical malpractice case for a defendant\nhospital after its doctor obtained an involuntary dismissal\ndue to the plaintiff’s failure to meet statutory pleading\nrequirements. 708 N.E.2d at 348–49. The involuntary\ndismissal with prejudice barred the plaintiff’s subsequent\naction against the doctor, but not the hospital. Id.\n In Leow v. A & B Freight Line, Inc., the court addressed the\nproper interpretation of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 273,\n\fNo. 18-3133 11\n\nwhich explains the effects of involuntary dismissals. 676\nN.E.2d 1284, 1286 (Ill. 1997). The court determined that an\ninvoluntary dismissal against a different party acted as an\nadjudication on the merits against another party only where\n“the prior dismissal must have caused the defendant to\nprepare to address the actual merits of plaintiff’s claim.”\nDeLuna, 708 N.E.2d at 347 (quotations omitted). See Leow, 676\nN.E.2d at 1288.\n The FDIC attempts to distinguish these cases because this\ncase involves neither involuntary dismissal nor vicarious lia-\nbility for employers. And, as we have noted, default judg-\nments are typically considered final judgments on the merits\nfor the purposes of res judicata. Hous. Auth. for La Salle Cty., 461\nN.E.2d at 963.\n But we believe the principles of equity underlying this\nstring of cases may be applied here. In the guaranty action,\nDoherty appeared, filed a response, and raised his affirmative\ndefenses against the bank’s claims. After obtaining its default\njudgment against Farano—and shortly after Doherty received\nthe handwriting expert’s report and threatened to bring a suit\nfor fraud—the bank dropped its claims against Worth and\nDoherty and dismissed those defendants without prejudice.\nThis posture ensured that the bank never had to address or\ndefend itself against Doherty’s fraud allegations.\nAccordingly, because the bank never had to address (and the\ncircuit court likewise never had to consider) Doherty’s fraud\nclaims, we do not believe the default judgment against a\ndifferent defendant barred Doherty’s later action.\n Applying res judicata in this situation also does not\nadvance the purposes of the doctrine. One of those purposes\nis to prevent a second litigation from undermining the prior\n\f12 No. 18-3133\n\njudgment. See Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 22(2)(b)\n(1982) (explaining that a defendant who fails to interpose a\npermissible counterclaim in an action is precluded from\nbringing a subsequent action on that claim if the claim’s\nsuccessful prosecution “would nullify the initial judgment or\nwould impair rights established in the initial action”). The\nFDIC argues that if Doherty were to succeed on his claims of\nfraud, it could undermine the circuit court’s conclusion that\nWorth owed money to the bank and that Farano defaulted on\nhis personal guaranty of the Worth loan. We find that\nargument unpersuasive. The FDIC provides no explanation\nfor how Doherty would have standing to challenge Farano’s\ndefault judgment. And at oral argument, Doherty himself\neven conceded that he likely has no standing to challenge the\ndefault judgment against Farano.\n Additionally, Doherty’s action here seeks redress for the\nbank’s alleged fraud but does not challenge the default\njudgment entered against Farano. Even if Doherty manages\nto prosecute this action successfully, the default judgment\nagainst Farano would go undisturbed. Therefore, the bank’s\ninterest in the previous litigation—its judgment against\nFarano—would remain in place.\n Similarly, as explained above, preventing claim splitting\nserves as one of the ends of applying res judicata. However,\nthat concern is not implicated in a case like this, where\nDoherty was a defendant and did not dismiss the first action\nhimself. See Rein, 665 N.E.2d at 1206 (“[P]laintiffs generally\nare not permitted to split their causes of action. The rule\nagainst claim-splitting, which is an aspect of the law of\npreclusion, prohibits a plaintiff from suing for part of a claim\n\fNo. 18-3133 13\n\nin one action and then suing for the remainder in another\naction.”).\n Nor are concerns about judicial economy implicated by\nallowing Doherty’s claims to proceed. In this case the circuit\ncourt never considered or weighed in on Doherty’s fraud\nclaims because the bank dismissed him without prejudice.\nThe bank never had to litigate these claims in the guaranty\naction—addressing them now will not force the bank into\nredundant litigation.\n Lastly, the FDIC encourages us to affirm the circuit court’s\ndismissal of Doherty’s claims on the alternative grounds that\nhis complaint fails to state a claim. Because neither the Illinois\ntrial court nor the district court have engaged Doherty’s\narguments, we decline to do so now. The district court should\nhave the first opportunity to consider that question.\n III. CONCLUSION\n Based on the foregoing, the circuit court incorrectly deter-\nmined that Doherty’s claims were barred by res judicata. Ac-\ncordingly, we REVERSE the district court’s dismissal of\nDoherty’s claims and REMAND for further proceedings.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Patrick J. DOHERTY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, as Receiver for Washington Federal Bank for Savings, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-08-06\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-3133\\nPATRICK J. DOHERTY,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n v.\\n\\nFEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, as receiver for\\nWASHINGTON FEDERAL BANK FOR SAVINGS, et al.,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 18 CV 703 — Joan B. Gottschall, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED MAY 14, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 6, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before FLAUM, KANNE, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.\\n KANNE, Circuit Judge. Washington Federal Bank brought a\\ndefault action against Patrick Doherty, John Farano, Jr., and\\nWorth Conversion, LLC, for notes related to various real es-\\ntate ventures. Doherty raised affirmative defenses on behalf\\nof himself and Worth, but the bank dismissed Doherty and\\nWorth from the action, without prejudice, after obtaining a\\ndefault judgment against Farano. Doherty then attempted to\\n\\f2 No. 18-3133\\n\\nbring this suit against the bank with claims founded on simi-\\nlar grounds as his previously-raised affirmative defenses. But\\nthe Cook County Circuit Court determined that Doherty’s\\nclaims were barred by res judicata thanks to the default judg-\\nment entered against Farano. Doherty appealed to the Illinois\\nAppellate Court, but before his appeal was heard, Washing-\\nton Federal was placed into the Federal Deposit Insurance\\nCorporation’s receivership. The FDIC removed this action to\\nthe district court, which adopted the Illinois Circuit Court’s\\ndecision. Because res judicata does not bar Doherty’s claims,\\nwe vacate and remand for further proceedings.\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n Patrick Doherty and John Farano, Jr., formed Worth Con-\\nversion, LLC. In April 2006, Washington Federal Bank (“the\\nbank”) loaned Worth $400,000 in exchange for Worth’s prom-\\nissory note and Doherty and Farano’s personal guaranties of\\nthe loan. Washington Federal extended the maturity date of\\nthe loan multiple times, but Worth eventually defaulted. The\\nbank subsequently sued Worth, Farano, and Doherty in Cook\\nCounty Circuit Court in March 2014 (the guaranty action).\\nThe twenty-seven count complaint also included counts re-\\nlated to other loans made to another entity affiliated with\\nFarano and Doherty, F & D Services, Inc. But the bank even-\\ntually dismissed those counts and F & D Services from the\\nsuit.\\n Doherty is an attorney and he filed an appearance in the\\nguaranty action on behalf of himself and Worth. In his answer\\nto the bank’s complaint, Doherty raised affirmative defenses,\\nincluding that the bank extended the maturity date of the loan\\n\\fNo. 18-3133 3\\n\\nwithout authorization, that the bank charged fees and an in-\\nterest rate not agreed upon, and that the bank charged exces-\\nsive fees.\\n Farano never appeared, however, and the trial court en-\\ntered a default judgment for the loan balance against Farano\\nfor Count XXVI, which sought judgment on his personal\\nguaranty of the loan, on August 27, 2014. The default judg-\\nment ordered:\\n 1. [Washington Federal’s] Motion for Default and\\n Judgment is granted; 2. [The bank] has proven the\\n damages it incurred and reasonable attorney’s fees\\n and costs; 3. Judgment is entered in favor of [the\\n bank] and against Defendant John Farano Jr., in the\\n TOTAL AMOUNT of $228,739.81 due under the\\n Note; $2,804.50 due in attorney fees and $485.33 in\\n legal costs; 4. There is no just reason to delay the en-\\n forcement of the judgment, appeal, or both.\\n On April 27, 2015, Doherty received a report from a foren-\\nsic document examiner opining that his signature had been\\nforged on loan extension paperwork in 2010. Doherty sent a\\ncopy of the report to the bank’s counsel, advising them that\\nhe intended to file a suit for fraud and other claims. Around\\nthat time, the bank moved the trial court to dismiss its claims\\nagainst Worth and Doherty from the action without preju-\\ndice. The trial court dismissed the bank’s remaining counts\\n(XXV—seeking judgment against Worth on default; and\\nXXVII—seeking judgment against Doherty on his guaranty of\\nthe Worth loan) on June 15, 2015. Doherty did not object to\\nthis order.\\n Over a year later, on June 28, 2016, Doherty filed suit\\nagainst the bank, its president, its corporate secretary, and its\\n\\f4 No. 18-3133\\n\\nattorneys, alleging breach of contract, forgery, excessive fees,\\nfraud, and legal malpractice against the bank’s law firm. He\\nclaimed that during the first trial (the guaranty action), he did\\nnot learn of the bank’s alleged forgery early enough to take\\naction before being dismissed. His suit sought to recover\\ndamages for the fees he incurred defending the guaranty ac-\\ntion. The trial court dismissed Doherty’s complaint, and he\\nfiled an amended complaint alleging the same facts and\\ncounts, but he alleged malicious prosecution instead of mal-\\npractice against the bank’s legal counsel.\\n The bank and its attorneys moved to dismiss Doherty’s\\namended complaint on the grounds of res judicata, lack of\\nstanding, and (on the malicious prosecution count) failure to\\nstate a claim. The trial court dismissed Doherty’s suit, holding\\nthat most of Doherty’s claims were barred by res judicata be-\\ncause he should have brought them in the guaranty action.\\nThe trial court also determined that he failed to state a claim\\nfor malicious prosecution. Doherty appealed to the Illinois\\nAppellate Court. Before the court heard Doherty’s appeal,\\nhowever, Washington Federal was placed into the FDIC’s re-\\nceivership. The FDIC removed this action to the Northern\\nDistrict of Illinois under 12 U.S.C. § 1819(b)(2)(B).\\n II. ANALYSIS\\n The district court adopted the Illinois trial court’s ruling as\\nits own. We therefore review the Illinois trial court’s decision\\nand analyze this appeal under Illinois law. Baek v. Clausen, 886\\nF.3d 652, 660 (7th Cir. 2018). On appeal, Doherty claims that\\nthe trial court erroneously dismissed his claims on the basis\\nof res judicata. His main point seems to be that the bank’s use\\nof Farano’s default judgment to defeat Doherty’s claims trans-\\nformed res judicata from a shield into a sword. In other words,\\n\\fNo. 18-3133 5\\n\\nby holding that Doherty’s claims were barred, the district\\ncourt effectively allowed the bank to kill Doherty’s fraud\\nclaims. The bank argues that the trial court correctly deter-\\nmined that res judicata barred Doherty’s claims, but even if it\\ndoes not, Doherty’s claims should be alternatively dismissed\\nfor failure to state a claim.\\n “Whether a claim is barred by res judicata is a question of\\nlaw that we review de novo.” Curtis v. Lofy, 914 N.E.2d 248, 254\\n(Ill. App. Ct. 2009). “The party asserting res judicata as a pre-\\nclusion to the second action bears the burden of showing with\\nclarity and certainty what was determined by the prior judg-\\nment.” BankFinancial, FSB v. Tandon, 2013 IL App (1st) 113152,\\n¶ 19.\\n A. Counterclaims and Affirmative Defenses in Illinois Civil\\n Procedure\\n A brief primer on Illinois civil procedure will help clarify\\nthe nature of Doherty’s argument. The Illinois rules provide\\nthat a “plaintiff may, at any time before trial or hearing be-\\ngins, upon notice to each party who has appeared or each\\nsuch party’s attorney, and upon payment of costs, dismiss his\\nor her action or any part thereof as to any defendant, without\\nprejudice, by order filed in the cause.” 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/2-\\n1009(a). “[A] dismissal ‘without prejudice’ signals that there\\nwas no final decision on the merits and that the plaintiff is not\\nbarred from refiling the action.” Richter v. Prairie Farms Dairy,\\nInc., 2016 IL 119518, ¶ 24. The rule also stipulates that a plain-\\ntiff’s dismissal of its claims against a defendant “does not dis-\\nmiss a pending counterclaim or third party complaint.” 735\\nIll. Comp. Stat. 5/2-1009(d). Illinois courts have held that a vol-\\nuntary dismissal by the plaintiff is an appealable order. Du-\\nbina v. Mesirow Realty Dev., Inc., 687 N.E.2d 871, 874–75 (Ill.\\n\\f6 No. 18-3133\\n\\n1997) (a voluntary dismissal terminates an action in its en-\\ntirety and renders all final orders immediately appealable).\\n Doherty’s claims were styled as affirmative defenses, not\\nas counterclaims. That was probably because, under Illinois\\ncivil procedure, a defendant must raise affirmative defenses in\\nthe answer or reply. See 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/2-613(d). Con-\\nversely, counterclaims are permissive in Illinois and can be\\nbrought in their own action. See 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/2-608.\\nSee Laue v. Leifheit, 473 N.E.2d 939, 943 (Ill. 1984) (describing\\nthat section 2–608’s language should be construed as estab-\\nlishing permissive counterclaims).\\n B. Res judicata in Illinois\\n “The doctrine of res judicata bars the refiling of an action\\npreviously adjudicated on the merits when the action is di-\\nrected against the same parties and involves the same claims.”\\nDeLuna v. Treister, 708 N.E.2d 340, 344 (Ill. 1999) (citing Rein v.\\nDavid A. Noyes & Co., 665 N.E.2d 1199, 1204 (Ill. 1996)). “Res\\njudicata promotes judicial economy by preventing repetitive\\nlitigation and [additionally] protects parties from being\\nforced to bear the unjust burden of relitigating essentially the\\nsame case.” Piagentini v. Ford Motor Co., 901 N.E.2d 986, 990–\\n91 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009) (quoting Arvia v. Madigan, 809 N.E.2d\\n88, 97 (Ill. 2004) (alteration in original)).\\n There are three requirements for res judicata in Illinois: “(1)\\na final judgment on the merits … entered in the first lawsuit\\nby a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) an identity of causes\\nof action exists; (3) the parties or their privies are identical in\\nboth lawsuits.” DeLuna, 708 N.E.2d at 344. “The requirement\\nof a final order or judgment is a ‘critical’ component in show-\\ning the applicability of res judicata.” Richter, 2016 IL 119518 at\\n\\fNo. 18-3133 7\\n\\n¶ 22 (citing Hernandez v. Pritikin, 2012 IL 113054, ¶ 41). And\\nthe Supreme Court of Illinois has explained that “default\\njudgments are always res judicata on the ultimate claim or de-\\nmand presented in the complaint.” Hous. Auth. for La Salle Cty.\\nv. Young Menʹs Christian Assʹn of Ottawa, 461 N.E.2d 959, 963\\n(Ill. 1984).\\n Illinois courts have applied res judicata broadly. “The doc-\\ntrine extends not only to what was actually decided in the\\noriginal action, but also to matters which could have been de-\\ncided in that suit.” Doe v. Gleicher, 911 N.E.2d 532, 537 (Ill. App.\\nCt. 2009) (quoting Rein, 665 N.E.2d at 1204). However,\\n“[e]quity dictates that the doctrine of res judicata will not be\\ntechnically applied if to do so would create inequitable and\\nunjust results. [It] should not be applied … where it would be\\nfundamentally unfair to do so … [and] should only be applied\\nas fairness and justice require.” Piagentini, 901 N.E.2d at 990–\\n91 (citations and quotations omitted). “Although it is recom-\\nmended that the doctrine receive a liberal construction and\\nshould be applied without technical restrictions, it has also\\nbeen recommended that the doctrine should not be applied so\\nrigidly as to defeat the ends of justice.” Fed. Signal Corp. v. SLC\\nTechs., Inc., 743 N.E.2d 1066, 1077 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001) (quoting\\nThornton v. Williams, 412 N.E.2d 157, 159 (Ill. App. Ct. 1980)).\\n C. Doherty’s Claims\\n The Illinois circuit court determined that res judicata\\napplied because the default judgment against Farano\\nconstituted a final judgment on the merits. It stated that\\nidentity of parties existed because the bank named Doherty\\nas a defendant in the guaranty action, and because the bank\\nwas originally the plaintiff in the guaranty action (and the\\nother named defendants were its agents and attorneys). The\\n\\f8 No. 18-3133\\n\\ntrial court determined that identity of causes existed because\\nDoherty raised his affirmative defenses in the guaranty\\naction, and the same underlying facts supporting his\\naffirmative defenses provided the basis for his claims in the\\nlater lawsuit against the bank and its attorneys.\\n The circuit court’s opinion relied on Corcoran-Hakala v.\\nDowd to establish that res judicata bars Doherty’s claims. See\\n840 N.E.2d 286, 293–94 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). In that case, the\\nIllinois Appellate Court explained that the common law\\nprinciple of compulsory counterclaim applies in some\\ninstances in Illinois, even though the statutorily-established\\nrules of civil procedure explicitly hold that counterclaims are\\npermissive: “res judicata bars a subsequent action if successful\\nprosecution of that action would in effect nullify the judgment\\nentered in the initial action.” Id. at 294 (citing Restatement\\n(Second) of Judgments § 22(2)(b) (1982)); Carey v. Neal, Cortina\\n& Associates, 576 N.E.2d 220, 225 (Ill. App. Ct. 1991)\\n(describing subsection 22(2)(b) of the Restatement as a\\n“common law rule of compulsory counterclaim”). This is true\\nif “the defendant’s claim involves the same operative facts as\\nthe plaintiff’s claim.” Id. at 293–94 (citing Torcasso v. Standard\\nOutdoor Sales, Inc., 597 N.E.2d 772, 775 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992),\\nrevʹd on other grounds, 626 N.E.2d 225 (Ill. 1993)).\\n We conclude that res judicata should not apply in this case\\nfor two main reasons. First, none of the Illinois cases relied on\\nby the circuit court or the FDIC address a situation like this\\none. And the most illuminating cases—if not exactly square\\nwith the posture of this case—suggest that applying the\\ndoctrine would be inappropriate. Second, applying the\\ndoctrine in this situation neither advances the purposes of res\\n\\fNo. 18-3133 9\\n\\njudicata nor meaningfully serves the interests of judicial\\neconomy.\\n Illinois case law does not support an application of the\\ndoctrine in these circumstances. Two wrinkles in this case\\ncomplicate the typical res judicata analysis and lead us to\\nconclude that the doctrine should not apply here. First, most\\nof the cases addressing res judicata in Illinois involve a\\nsituation in which a plaintiff in the first action attempts to\\nbring the same or similar claims in a later action—not a\\nsituation in which a defendant to the first action brings\\naffirmative defenses as independent claims in the second\\naction. Second, the default judgment applied to a different\\ndefendant.1\\n The FDIC responds to Doherty’s arguments on appeal by\\ndirecting our attention to the broad and liberal application of\\nres judicata found throughout Illinois case law. Doherty\\nargues that because the circuit court dismissed him without\\nprejudice on the bank’s section 2-1009 motion in the guaranty\\naction, res judicata should therefore not apply. The FDIC relies\\non Rein for the proposition that even though the final\\njudgment on the merits did not apply to all the claims in the\\nguaranty action, res judicata still applies. But Rein involved a\\ncase where, in the first action, plaintiffs received a dismissal\\nwith prejudice on some of their claims and voluntarily\\ndismissed their remaining claims pursuant to section 2-1009.\\n665 N.E.2d at 1205. They later re-filed those claims in a second\\n\\n 1 The FDIC does give examples of cases in which a defendant in the\\nfirst action attempts to bring claims that would have been suitable for an\\naffirmative defense in a later action, but this second factor distinguishes\\nthem. See, e.g., Henry v. Farmer City State Bank, 808 F.2d 1228, 1235 (7th Cir.\\n1986).\\n\\f10 No. 18-3133\\n\\naction, engaging in the classic claim-splitting that res judicata\\nattempts to prevent. Id. at 1206. Here, Doherty neither made\\na section 2-1009 motion nor had a final judgment that\\naddressed any of the bank’s claims as they pertained to him\\nor his defenses.\\n And although we have found no case that directly applies\\nto this situation, a string of Illinois cases leads us to conclude\\nthat the doctrine should not apply here. “The Illinois Supreme\\nCourt has held that if the basis of dismissal against one party\\nbears no relationship to the merits of the case, it is\\n‘inappropriate to apply the doctrine of res judicata [against]\\nanother party to the action.’” Curtis, 914 N.E.2d at 260\\n(quoting Downing v. Chicago Transit Auth,, 642 N.E.2d 456, 460\\n(Ill. 1994)). In Downing the Supreme Court of Illinois held that\\nan order that granted summary judgment in favor of an\\nemployee on statute-of-limitations grounds did not preclude\\na later suit based on a respondeat superior theory against his\\nemployer because the summary judgment order was not\\nbased on the merits of the case. According to the court, to label\\na summary judgment order based on the statute of limitations\\nas “an adjudication on the merits would be the quintessential\\nact of exalting form over substance.” 642 N.E.2d at 460.\\n Similarly, in DeLuna v. Treister, the court refused to apply\\nres judicata in a medical malpractice case for a defendant\\nhospital after its doctor obtained an involuntary dismissal\\ndue to the plaintiff’s failure to meet statutory pleading\\nrequirements. 708 N.E.2d at 348–49. The involuntary\\ndismissal with prejudice barred the plaintiff’s subsequent\\naction against the doctor, but not the hospital. Id.\\n In Leow v. A & B Freight Line, Inc., the court addressed the\\nproper interpretation of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 273,\\n\\fNo. 18-3133 11\\n\\nwhich explains the effects of involuntary dismissals. 676\\nN.E.2d 1284, 1286 (Ill. 1997). The court determined that an\\ninvoluntary dismissal against a different party acted as an\\nadjudication on the merits against another party only where\\n“the prior dismissal must have caused the defendant to\\nprepare to address the actual merits of plaintiff’s claim.”\\nDeLuna, 708 N.E.2d at 347 (quotations omitted). See Leow, 676\\nN.E.2d at 1288.\\n The FDIC attempts to distinguish these cases because this\\ncase involves neither involuntary dismissal nor vicarious lia-\\nbility for employers. And, as we have noted, default judg-\\nments are typically considered final judgments on the merits\\nfor the purposes of res judicata. Hous. Auth. for La Salle Cty., 461\\nN.E.2d at 963.\\n But we believe the principles of equity underlying this\\nstring of cases may be applied here. In the guaranty action,\\nDoherty appeared, filed a response, and raised his affirmative\\ndefenses against the bank’s claims. After obtaining its default\\njudgment against Farano—and shortly after Doherty received\\nthe handwriting expert’s report and threatened to bring a suit\\nfor fraud—the bank dropped its claims against Worth and\\nDoherty and dismissed those defendants without prejudice.\\nThis posture ensured that the bank never had to address or\\ndefend itself against Doherty’s fraud allegations.\\nAccordingly, because the bank never had to address (and the\\ncircuit court likewise never had to consider) Doherty’s fraud\\nclaims, we do not believe the default judgment against a\\ndifferent defendant barred Doherty’s later action.\\n Applying res judicata in this situation also does not\\nadvance the purposes of the doctrine. One of those purposes\\nis to prevent a second litigation from undermining the prior\\n\\f12 No. 18-3133\\n\\njudgment. See Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 22(2)(b)\\n(1982) (explaining that a defendant who fails to interpose a\\npermissible counterclaim in an action is precluded from\\nbringing a subsequent action on that claim if the claim’s\\nsuccessful prosecution “would nullify the initial judgment or\\nwould impair rights established in the initial action”). The\\nFDIC argues that if Doherty were to succeed on his claims of\\nfraud, it could undermine the circuit court’s conclusion that\\nWorth owed money to the bank and that Farano defaulted on\\nhis personal guaranty of the Worth loan. We find that\\nargument unpersuasive. The FDIC provides no explanation\\nfor how Doherty would have standing to challenge Farano’s\\ndefault judgment. And at oral argument, Doherty himself\\neven conceded that he likely has no standing to challenge the\\ndefault judgment against Farano.\\n Additionally, Doherty’s action here seeks redress for the\\nbank’s alleged fraud but does not challenge the default\\njudgment entered against Farano. Even if Doherty manages\\nto prosecute this action successfully, the default judgment\\nagainst Farano would go undisturbed. Therefore, the bank’s\\ninterest in the previous litigation—its judgment against\\nFarano—would remain in place.\\n Similarly, as explained above, preventing claim splitting\\nserves as one of the ends of applying res judicata. However,\\nthat concern is not implicated in a case like this, where\\nDoherty was a defendant and did not dismiss the first action\\nhimself. See Rein, 665 N.E.2d at 1206 (“[P]laintiffs generally\\nare not permitted to split their causes of action. The rule\\nagainst claim-splitting, which is an aspect of the law of\\npreclusion, prohibits a plaintiff from suing for part of a claim\\n\\fNo. 18-3133 13\\n\\nin one action and then suing for the remainder in another\\naction.”).\\n Nor are concerns about judicial economy implicated by\\nallowing Doherty’s claims to proceed. In this case the circuit\\ncourt never considered or weighed in on Doherty’s fraud\\nclaims because the bank dismissed him without prejudice.\\nThe bank never had to litigate these claims in the guaranty\\naction—addressing them now will not force the bank into\\nredundant litigation.\\n Lastly, the FDIC encourages us to affirm the circuit court’s\\ndismissal of Doherty’s claims on the alternative grounds that\\nhis complaint fails to state a claim. Because neither the Illinois\\ntrial court nor the district court have engaged Doherty’s\\narguments, we decline to do so now. The district court should\\nhave the first opportunity to consider that question.\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n Based on the foregoing, the circuit court incorrectly deter-\\nmined that Doherty’s claims were barred by res judicata. Ac-\\ncordingly, we REVERSE the district court’s dismissal of\\nDoherty’s claims and REMAND for further proceedings.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3792,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4645876,"string":"4,645,876"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Patrick Doherty v. FDIC"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-08-06"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-3133"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before FLAUM, KANNE, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"Michael Stephen Kanne\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-3133\\nPATRICK J. DOHERTY,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n v.\\n\\nFEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, as receiver for\\nWASHINGTON FEDERAL BANK FOR SAVINGS, et al.,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 18 CV 703 — Joan B. Gottschall, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED MAY 14, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 6, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before FLAUM, KANNE, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.\\n KANNE, Circuit Judge. Washington Federal Bank brought a\\ndefault action against Patrick Doherty, John Farano, Jr., and\\nWorth Conversion, LLC, for notes related to various real es-\\ntate ventures. Doherty raised affirmative defenses on behalf\\nof himself and Worth, but the bank dismissed Doherty and\\nWorth from the action, without prejudice, after obtaining a\\ndefault judgment against Farano. Doherty then attempted to\\n\\f2 No. 18-3133\\n\\nbring this suit against the bank with claims founded on simi-\\nlar grounds as his previously-raised affirmative defenses. But\\nthe Cook County Circuit Court determined that Doherty’s\\nclaims were barred by res judicata thanks to the default judg-\\nment entered against Farano. Doherty appealed to the Illinois\\nAppellate Court, but before his appeal was heard, Washing-\\nton Federal was placed into the Federal Deposit Insurance\\nCorporation’s receivership. The FDIC removed this action to\\nthe district court, which adopted the Illinois Circuit Court’s\\ndecision. Because res judicata does not bar Doherty’s claims,\\nwe vacate and remand for further proceedings.\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n Patrick Doherty and John Farano, Jr., formed Worth Con-\\nversion, LLC. In April 2006, Washington Federal Bank (“the\\nbank”) loaned Worth $400,000 in exchange for Worth’s prom-\\nissory note and Doherty and Farano’s personal guaranties of\\nthe loan. Washington Federal extended the maturity date of\\nthe loan multiple times, but Worth eventually defaulted. The\\nbank subsequently sued Worth, Farano, and Doherty in Cook\\nCounty Circuit Court in March 2014 (the guaranty action).\\nThe twenty-seven count complaint also included counts re-\\nlated to other loans made to another entity affiliated with\\nFarano and Doherty, F & D Services, Inc. But the bank even-\\ntually dismissed those counts and F & D Services from the\\nsuit.\\n Doherty is an attorney and he filed an appearance in the\\nguaranty action on behalf of himself and Worth. In his answer\\nto the bank’s complaint, Doherty raised affirmative defenses,\\nincluding that the bank extended the maturity date of the loan\\n\\fNo. 18-3133 3\\n\\nwithout authorization, that the bank charged fees and an in-\\nterest rate not agreed upon, and that the bank charged exces-\\nsive fees.\\n Farano never appeared, however, and the trial court en-\\ntered a default judgment for the loan balance against Farano\\nfor Count XXVI, which sought judgment on his personal\\nguaranty of the loan, on August 27, 2014. The default judg-\\nment ordered:\\n 1. [Washington Federal’s] Motion for Default and\\n Judgment is granted; 2. [The bank] has proven the\\n damages it incurred and reasonable attorney’s fees\\n and costs; 3. Judgment is entered in favor of [the\\n bank] and against Defendant John Farano Jr., in the\\n TOTAL AMOUNT of $228,739.81 due under the\\n Note; $2,804.50 due in attorney fees and $485.33 in\\n legal costs; 4. There is no just reason to delay the en-\\n forcement of the judgment, appeal, or both.\\n On April 27, 2015, Doherty received a report from a foren-\\nsic document examiner opining that his signature had been\\nforged on loan extension paperwork in 2010. Doherty sent a\\ncopy of the report to the bank’s counsel, advising them that\\nhe intended to file a suit for fraud and other claims. Around\\nthat time, the bank moved the trial court to dismiss its claims\\nagainst Worth and Doherty from the action without preju-\\ndice. The trial court dismissed the bank’s remaining counts\\n(XXV—seeking judgment against Worth on default; and\\nXXVII—seeking judgment against Doherty on his guaranty of\\nthe Worth loan) on June 15, 2015. Doherty did not object to\\nthis order.\\n Over a year later, on June 28, 2016, Doherty filed suit\\nagainst the bank, its president, its corporate secretary, and its\\n\\f4 No. 18-3133\\n\\nattorneys, alleging breach of contract, forgery, excessive fees,\\nfraud, and legal malpractice against the bank’s law firm. He\\nclaimed that during the first trial (the guaranty action), he did\\nnot learn of the bank’s alleged forgery early enough to take\\naction before being dismissed. His suit sought to recover\\ndamages for the fees he incurred defending the guaranty ac-\\ntion. The trial court dismissed Doherty’s complaint, and he\\nfiled an amended complaint alleging the same facts and\\ncounts, but he alleged malicious prosecution instead of mal-\\npractice against the bank’s legal counsel.\\n The bank and its attorneys moved to dismiss Doherty’s\\namended complaint on the grounds of res judicata, lack of\\nstanding, and (on the malicious prosecution count) failure to\\nstate a claim. The trial court dismissed Doherty’s suit, holding\\nthat most of Doherty’s claims were barred by res judicata be-\\ncause he should have brought them in the guaranty action.\\nThe trial court also determined that he failed to state a claim\\nfor malicious prosecution. Doherty appealed to the Illinois\\nAppellate Court. Before the court heard Doherty’s appeal,\\nhowever, Washington Federal was placed into the FDIC’s re-\\nceivership. The FDIC removed this action to the Northern\\nDistrict of Illinois under 12 U.S.C. § 1819(b)(2)(B).\\n II. ANALYSIS\\n The district court adopted the Illinois trial court’s ruling as\\nits own. We therefore review the Illinois trial court’s decision\\nand analyze this appeal under Illinois law. Baek v. Clausen, 886\\nF.3d 652, 660 (7th Cir. 2018). On appeal, Doherty claims that\\nthe trial court erroneously dismissed his claims on the basis\\nof res judicata. His main point seems to be that the bank’s use\\nof Farano’s default judgment to defeat Doherty’s claims trans-\\nformed res judicata from a shield into a sword. In other words,\\n\\fNo. 18-3133 5\\n\\nby holding that Doherty’s claims were barred, the district\\ncourt effectively allowed the bank to kill Doherty’s fraud\\nclaims. The bank argues that the trial court correctly deter-\\nmined that res judicata barred Doherty’s claims, but even if it\\ndoes not, Doherty’s claims should be alternatively dismissed\\nfor failure to state a claim.\\n “Whether a claim is barred by res judicata is a question of\\nlaw that we review de novo.” Curtis v. Lofy, 914 N.E.2d 248, 254\\n(Ill. App. Ct. 2009). “The party asserting res judicata as a pre-\\nclusion to the second action bears the burden of showing with\\nclarity and certainty what was determined by the prior judg-\\nment.” BankFinancial, FSB v. Tandon, 2013 IL App (1st) 113152,\\n¶ 19.\\n A. Counterclaims and Affirmative Defenses in Illinois Civil\\n Procedure\\n A brief primer on Illinois civil procedure will help clarify\\nthe nature of Doherty’s argument. The Illinois rules provide\\nthat a “plaintiff may, at any time before trial or hearing be-\\ngins, upon notice to each party who has appeared or each\\nsuch party’s attorney, and upon payment of costs, dismiss his\\nor her action or any part thereof as to any defendant, without\\nprejudice, by order filed in the cause.” 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/2-\\n1009(a). “[A] dismissal ‘without prejudice’ signals that there\\nwas no final decision on the merits and that the plaintiff is not\\nbarred from refiling the action.” Richter v. Prairie Farms Dairy,\\nInc., 2016 IL 119518, ¶ 24. The rule also stipulates that a plain-\\ntiff’s dismissal of its claims against a defendant “does not dis-\\nmiss a pending counterclaim or third party complaint.” 735\\nIll. Comp. Stat. 5/2-1009(d). Illinois courts have held that a vol-\\nuntary dismissal by the plaintiff is an appealable order. Du-\\nbina v. Mesirow Realty Dev., Inc., 687 N.E.2d 871, 874–75 (Ill.\\n\\f6 No. 18-3133\\n\\n1997) (a voluntary dismissal terminates an action in its en-\\ntirety and renders all final orders immediately appealable).\\n Doherty’s claims were styled as affirmative defenses, not\\nas counterclaims. That was probably because, under Illinois\\ncivil procedure, a defendant must raise affirmative defenses in\\nthe answer or reply. See 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/2-613(d). Con-\\nversely, counterclaims are permissive in Illinois and can be\\nbrought in their own action. See 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/2-608.\\nSee Laue v. Leifheit, 473 N.E.2d 939, 943 (Ill. 1984) (describing\\nthat section 2–608’s language should be construed as estab-\\nlishing permissive counterclaims).\\n B. Res judicata in Illinois\\n “The doctrine of res judicata bars the refiling of an action\\npreviously adjudicated on the merits when the action is di-\\nrected against the same parties and involves the same claims.”\\nDeLuna v. Treister, 708 N.E.2d 340, 344 (Ill. 1999) (citing Rein v.\\nDavid A. Noyes & Co., 665 N.E.2d 1199, 1204 (Ill. 1996)). “Res\\njudicata promotes judicial economy by preventing repetitive\\nlitigation and [additionally] protects parties from being\\nforced to bear the unjust burden of relitigating essentially the\\nsame case.” Piagentini v. Ford Motor Co., 901 N.E.2d 986, 990–\\n91 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009) (quoting Arvia v. Madigan, 809 N.E.2d\\n88, 97 (Ill. 2004) (alteration in original)).\\n There are three requirements for res judicata in Illinois: “(1)\\na final judgment on the merits … entered in the first lawsuit\\nby a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) an identity of causes\\nof action exists; (3) the parties or their privies are identical in\\nboth lawsuits.” DeLuna, 708 N.E.2d at 344. “The requirement\\nof a final order or judgment is a ‘critical’ component in show-\\ning the applicability of res judicata.” Richter, 2016 IL 119518 at\\n\\fNo. 18-3133 7\\n\\n¶ 22 (citing Hernandez v. Pritikin, 2012 IL 113054, ¶ 41). And\\nthe Supreme Court of Illinois has explained that “default\\njudgments are always res judicata on the ultimate claim or de-\\nmand presented in the complaint.” Hous. Auth. for La Salle Cty.\\nv. Young Menʹs Christian Assʹn of Ottawa, 461 N.E.2d 959, 963\\n(Ill. 1984).\\n Illinois courts have applied res judicata broadly. “The doc-\\ntrine extends not only to what was actually decided in the\\noriginal action, but also to matters which could have been de-\\ncided in that suit.” Doe v. Gleicher, 911 N.E.2d 532, 537 (Ill. App.\\nCt. 2009) (quoting Rein, 665 N.E.2d at 1204). However,\\n“[e]quity dictates that the doctrine of res judicata will not be\\ntechnically applied if to do so would create inequitable and\\nunjust results. [It] should not be applied … where it would be\\nfundamentally unfair to do so … [and] should only be applied\\nas fairness and justice require.” Piagentini, 901 N.E.2d at 990–\\n91 (citations and quotations omitted). “Although it is recom-\\nmended that the doctrine receive a liberal construction and\\nshould be applied without technical restrictions, it has also\\nbeen recommended that the doctrine should not be applied so\\nrigidly as to defeat the ends of justice.” Fed. Signal Corp. v. SLC\\nTechs., Inc., 743 N.E.2d 1066, 1077 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001) (quoting\\nThornton v. Williams, 412 N.E.2d 157, 159 (Ill. App. Ct. 1980)).\\n C. Doherty’s Claims\\n The Illinois circuit court determined that res judicata\\napplied because the default judgment against Farano\\nconstituted a final judgment on the merits. It stated that\\nidentity of parties existed because the bank named Doherty\\nas a defendant in the guaranty action, and because the bank\\nwas originally the plaintiff in the guaranty action (and the\\nother named defendants were its agents and attorneys). The\\n\\f8 No. 18-3133\\n\\ntrial court determined that identity of causes existed because\\nDoherty raised his affirmative defenses in the guaranty\\naction, and the same underlying facts supporting his\\naffirmative defenses provided the basis for his claims in the\\nlater lawsuit against the bank and its attorneys.\\n The circuit court’s opinion relied on Corcoran-Hakala v.\\nDowd to establish that res judicata bars Doherty’s claims. See\\n840 N.E.2d 286, 293–94 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). In that case, the\\nIllinois Appellate Court explained that the common law\\nprinciple of compulsory counterclaim applies in some\\ninstances in Illinois, even though the statutorily-established\\nrules of civil procedure explicitly hold that counterclaims are\\npermissive: “res judicata bars a subsequent action if successful\\nprosecution of that action would in effect nullify the judgment\\nentered in the initial action.” Id. at 294 (citing Restatement\\n(Second) of Judgments § 22(2)(b) (1982)); Carey v. Neal, Cortina\\n& Associates, 576 N.E.2d 220, 225 (Ill. App. Ct. 1991)\\n(describing subsection 22(2)(b) of the Restatement as a\\n“common law rule of compulsory counterclaim”). This is true\\nif “the defendant’s claim involves the same operative facts as\\nthe plaintiff’s claim.” Id. at 293–94 (citing Torcasso v. Standard\\nOutdoor Sales, Inc., 597 N.E.2d 772, 775 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992),\\nrevʹd on other grounds, 626 N.E.2d 225 (Ill. 1993)).\\n We conclude that res judicata should not apply in this case\\nfor two main reasons. First, none of the Illinois cases relied on\\nby the circuit court or the FDIC address a situation like this\\none. And the most illuminating cases—if not exactly square\\nwith the posture of this case—suggest that applying the\\ndoctrine would be inappropriate. Second, applying the\\ndoctrine in this situation neither advances the purposes of res\\n\\fNo. 18-3133 9\\n\\njudicata nor meaningfully serves the interests of judicial\\neconomy.\\n Illinois case law does not support an application of the\\ndoctrine in these circumstances. Two wrinkles in this case\\ncomplicate the typical res judicata analysis and lead us to\\nconclude that the doctrine should not apply here. First, most\\nof the cases addressing res judicata in Illinois involve a\\nsituation in which a plaintiff in the first action attempts to\\nbring the same or similar claims in a later action—not a\\nsituation in which a defendant to the first action brings\\naffirmative defenses as independent claims in the second\\naction. Second, the default judgment applied to a different\\ndefendant.1\\n The FDIC responds to Doherty’s arguments on appeal by\\ndirecting our attention to the broad and liberal application of\\nres judicata found throughout Illinois case law. Doherty\\nargues that because the circuit court dismissed him without\\nprejudice on the bank’s section 2-1009 motion in the guaranty\\naction, res judicata should therefore not apply. The FDIC relies\\non Rein for the proposition that even though the final\\njudgment on the merits did not apply to all the claims in the\\nguaranty action, res judicata still applies. But Rein involved a\\ncase where, in the first action, plaintiffs received a dismissal\\nwith prejudice on some of their claims and voluntarily\\ndismissed their remaining claims pursuant to section 2-1009.\\n665 N.E.2d at 1205. They later re-filed those claims in a second\\n\\n 1 The FDIC does give examples of cases in which a defendant in the\\nfirst action attempts to bring claims that would have been suitable for an\\naffirmative defense in a later action, but this second factor distinguishes\\nthem. See, e.g., Henry v. Farmer City State Bank, 808 F.2d 1228, 1235 (7th Cir.\\n1986).\\n\\f10 No. 18-3133\\n\\naction, engaging in the classic claim-splitting that res judicata\\nattempts to prevent. Id. at 1206. Here, Doherty neither made\\na section 2-1009 motion nor had a final judgment that\\naddressed any of the bank’s claims as they pertained to him\\nor his defenses.\\n And although we have found no case that directly applies\\nto this situation, a string of Illinois cases leads us to conclude\\nthat the doctrine should not apply here. “The Illinois Supreme\\nCourt has held that if the basis of dismissal against one party\\nbears no relationship to the merits of the case, it is\\n‘inappropriate to apply the doctrine of res judicata [against]\\nanother party to the action.’” Curtis, 914 N.E.2d at 260\\n(quoting Downing v. Chicago Transit Auth,, 642 N.E.2d 456, 460\\n(Ill. 1994)). In Downing the Supreme Court of Illinois held that\\nan order that granted summary judgment in favor of an\\nemployee on statute-of-limitations grounds did not preclude\\na later suit based on a respondeat superior theory against his\\nemployer because the summary judgment order was not\\nbased on the merits of the case. According to the court, to label\\na summary judgment order based on the statute of limitations\\nas “an adjudication on the merits would be the quintessential\\nact of exalting form over substance.” 642 N.E.2d at 460.\\n Similarly, in DeLuna v. Treister, the court refused to apply\\nres judicata in a medical malpractice case for a defendant\\nhospital after its doctor obtained an involuntary dismissal\\ndue to the plaintiff’s failure to meet statutory pleading\\nrequirements. 708 N.E.2d at 348–49. The involuntary\\ndismissal with prejudice barred the plaintiff’s subsequent\\naction against the doctor, but not the hospital. Id.\\n In Leow v. A & B Freight Line, Inc., the court addressed the\\nproper interpretation of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 273,\\n\\fNo. 18-3133 11\\n\\nwhich explains the effects of involuntary dismissals. 676\\nN.E.2d 1284, 1286 (Ill. 1997). The court determined that an\\ninvoluntary dismissal against a different party acted as an\\nadjudication on the merits against another party only where\\n“the prior dismissal must have caused the defendant to\\nprepare to address the actual merits of plaintiff’s claim.”\\nDeLuna, 708 N.E.2d at 347 (quotations omitted). See Leow, 676\\nN.E.2d at 1288.\\n The FDIC attempts to distinguish these cases because this\\ncase involves neither involuntary dismissal nor vicarious lia-\\nbility for employers. And, as we have noted, default judg-\\nments are typically considered final judgments on the merits\\nfor the purposes of res judicata. Hous. Auth. for La Salle Cty., 461\\nN.E.2d at 963.\\n But we believe the principles of equity underlying this\\nstring of cases may be applied here. In the guaranty action,\\nDoherty appeared, filed a response, and raised his affirmative\\ndefenses against the bank’s claims. After obtaining its default\\njudgment against Farano—and shortly after Doherty received\\nthe handwriting expert’s report and threatened to bring a suit\\nfor fraud—the bank dropped its claims against Worth and\\nDoherty and dismissed those defendants without prejudice.\\nThis posture ensured that the bank never had to address or\\ndefend itself against Doherty’s fraud allegations.\\nAccordingly, because the bank never had to address (and the\\ncircuit court likewise never had to consider) Doherty’s fraud\\nclaims, we do not believe the default judgment against a\\ndifferent defendant barred Doherty’s later action.\\n Applying res judicata in this situation also does not\\nadvance the purposes of the doctrine. One of those purposes\\nis to prevent a second litigation from undermining the prior\\n\\f12 No. 18-3133\\n\\njudgment. See Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 22(2)(b)\\n(1982) (explaining that a defendant who fails to interpose a\\npermissible counterclaim in an action is precluded from\\nbringing a subsequent action on that claim if the claim’s\\nsuccessful prosecution “would nullify the initial judgment or\\nwould impair rights established in the initial action”). The\\nFDIC argues that if Doherty were to succeed on his claims of\\nfraud, it could undermine the circuit court’s conclusion that\\nWorth owed money to the bank and that Farano defaulted on\\nhis personal guaranty of the Worth loan. We find that\\nargument unpersuasive. The FDIC provides no explanation\\nfor how Doherty would have standing to challenge Farano’s\\ndefault judgment. And at oral argument, Doherty himself\\neven conceded that he likely has no standing to challenge the\\ndefault judgment against Farano.\\n Additionally, Doherty’s action here seeks redress for the\\nbank’s alleged fraud but does not challenge the default\\njudgment entered against Farano. Even if Doherty manages\\nto prosecute this action successfully, the default judgment\\nagainst Farano would go undisturbed. Therefore, the bank’s\\ninterest in the previous litigation—its judgment against\\nFarano—would remain in place.\\n Similarly, as explained above, preventing claim splitting\\nserves as one of the ends of applying res judicata. However,\\nthat concern is not implicated in a case like this, where\\nDoherty was a defendant and did not dismiss the first action\\nhimself. See Rein, 665 N.E.2d at 1206 (“[P]laintiffs generally\\nare not permitted to split their causes of action. The rule\\nagainst claim-splitting, which is an aspect of the law of\\npreclusion, prohibits a plaintiff from suing for part of a claim\\n\\fNo. 18-3133 13\\n\\nin one action and then suing for the remainder in another\\naction.”).\\n Nor are concerns about judicial economy implicated by\\nallowing Doherty’s claims to proceed. In this case the circuit\\ncourt never considered or weighed in on Doherty’s fraud\\nclaims because the bank dismissed him without prejudice.\\nThe bank never had to litigate these claims in the guaranty\\naction—addressing them now will not force the bank into\\nredundant litigation.\\n Lastly, the FDIC encourages us to affirm the circuit court’s\\ndismissal of Doherty’s claims on the alternative grounds that\\nhis complaint fails to state a claim. Because neither the Illinois\\ntrial court nor the district court have engaged Doherty’s\\narguments, we decline to do so now. The district court should\\nhave the first opportunity to consider that question.\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n Based on the foregoing, the circuit court incorrectly deter-\\nmined that Doherty’s claims were barred by res judicata. Ac-\\ncordingly, we REVERSE the district court’s dismissal of\\nDoherty’s claims and REMAND for further proceedings.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4423129/\", \"author_raw\": \"Michael Stephen Kanne\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"FLAUM"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"KANNE"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"SCUDDER"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"FLAUM\": \", Circuit\", \"KANNE\": \", Circuit\", \"SCUDDER\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645876/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":8,"string":"8"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Patrick Doherty v. FDIC\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-08-06\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-3133\nPATRICK J. DOHERTY,\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\n v.\n\nFEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, as receiver for\nWASHINGTON FEDERAL BANK FOR SAVINGS, et al.,\n Defendants-Appellees.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\n No. 18 CV 703 — Joan B. Gottschall, Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED MAY 14, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 6, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before FLAUM, KANNE, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.\n KANNE, Circuit Judge. Washington Federal Bank brought a\ndefault action against Patrick Doherty, John Farano, Jr., and\nWorth Conversion, LLC, for notes related to various real es-\ntate ventures. Doherty raised affirmative defenses on behalf\nof himself and Worth, but the bank dismissed Doherty and\nWorth from the action, without prejudice, after obtaining a\ndefault judgment against Farano. Doherty then attempted to\n\f2 No. 18-3133\n\nbring this suit against the bank with claims founded on simi-\nlar grounds as his previously-raised affirmative defenses. But\nthe Cook County Circuit Court determined that Doherty’s\nclaims were barred by res judicata thanks to the default judg-\nment entered against Farano. Doherty appealed to the Illinois\nAppellate Court, but before his appeal was heard, Washing-\nton Federal was placed into the Federal Deposit Insurance\nCorporation’s receivership. The FDIC removed this action to\nthe district court, which adopted the Illinois Circuit Court’s\ndecision. Because res judicata does not bar Doherty’s claims,\nwe vacate and remand for further proceedings.\n I. BACKGROUND\n Patrick Doherty and John Farano, Jr., formed Worth Con-\nversion, LLC. In April 2006, Washington Federal Bank (“the\nbank”) loaned Worth $400,000 in exchange for Worth’s prom-\nissory note and Doherty and Farano’s personal guaranties of\nthe loan. Washington Federal extended the maturity date of\nthe loan multiple times, but Worth eventually defaulted. The\nbank subsequently sued Worth, Farano, and Doherty in Cook\nCounty Circuit Court in March 2014 (the guaranty action).\nThe twenty-seven count complaint also included counts re-\nlated to other loans made to another entity affiliated with\nFarano and Doherty, F & D Services, Inc. But the bank even-\ntually dismissed those counts and F & D Services from the\nsuit.\n Doherty is an attorney and he filed an appearance in the\nguaranty action on behalf of himself and Worth. In his answer\nto the bank’s complaint, Doherty raised affirmative defenses,\nincluding that the bank extended the maturity date of the loan\n\fNo. 18-3133 3\n\nwithout authorization, that the bank charged fees and an in-\nterest rate not agreed upon, and that the bank charged exces-\nsive fees.\n Farano never appeared, however, and the trial court en-\ntered a default judgment for the loan balance against Farano\nfor Count XXVI, which sought judgment on his personal\nguaranty of the loan, on August 27, 2014. The default judg-\nment ordered:\n 1. [Washington Federal’s] Motion for Default and\n Judgment is granted; 2. [The bank] has proven the\n damages it incurred and reasonable attorney’s fees\n and costs; 3. Judgment is entered in favor of [the\n bank] and against Defendant John Farano Jr., in the\n TOTAL AMOUNT of $228,739.81 due under the\n Note; $2,804.50 due in attorney fees and $485.33 in\n legal costs; 4. There is no just reason to delay the en-\n forcement of the judgment, appeal, or both.\n On April 27, 2015, Doherty received a report from a foren-\nsic document examiner opining that his signature had been\nforged on loan extension paperwork in 2010. Doherty sent a\ncopy of the report to the bank’s counsel, advising them that\nhe intended to file a suit for fraud and other claims. Around\nthat time, the bank moved the trial court to dismiss its claims\nagainst Worth and Doherty from the action without preju-\ndice. The trial court dismissed the bank’s remaining counts\n(XXV—seeking judgment against Worth on default; and\nXXVII—seeking judgment against Doherty on his guaranty of\nthe Worth loan) on June 15, 2015. Doherty did not object to\nthis order.\n Over a year later, on June 28, 2016, Doherty filed suit\nagainst the bank, its president, its corporate secretary, and its\n\f4 No. 18-3133\n\nattorneys, alleging breach of contract, forgery, excessive fees,\nfraud, and legal malpractice against the bank’s law firm. He\nclaimed that during the first trial (the guaranty action), he did\nnot learn of the bank’s alleged forgery early enough to take\naction before being dismissed. His suit sought to recover\ndamages for the fees he incurred defending the guaranty ac-\ntion. The trial court dismissed Doherty’s complaint, and he\nfiled an amended complaint alleging the same facts and\ncounts, but he alleged malicious prosecution instead of mal-\npractice against the bank’s legal counsel.\n The bank and its attorneys moved to dismiss Doherty’s\namended complaint on the grounds of res judicata, lack of\nstanding, and (on the malicious prosecution count) failure to\nstate a claim. The trial court dismissed Doherty’s suit, holding\nthat most of Doherty’s claims were barred by res judicata be-\ncause he should have brought them in the guaranty action.\nThe trial court also determined that he failed to state a claim\nfor malicious prosecution. Doherty appealed to the Illinois\nAppellate Court. Before the court heard Doherty’s appeal,\nhowever, Washington Federal was placed into the FDIC’s re-\nceivership. The FDIC removed this action to the Northern\nDistrict of Illinois under 12 U.S.C. § 1819(b)(2)(B).\n II. ANALYSIS\n The district court adopted the Illinois trial court’s ruling as\nits own. We therefore review the Illinois trial court’s decision\nand analyze this appeal under Illinois law. Baek v. Clausen, 886\nF.3d 652, 660 (7th Cir. 2018). On appeal, Doherty claims that\nthe trial court erroneously dismissed his claims on the basis\nof res judicata. His main point seems to be that the bank’s use\nof Farano’s default judgment to defeat Doherty’s claims trans-\nformed res judicata from a shield into a sword. In other words,\n\fNo. 18-3133 5\n\nby holding that Doherty’s claims were barred, the district\ncourt effectively allowed the bank to kill Doherty’s fraud\nclaims. The bank argues that the trial court correctly deter-\nmined that res judicata barred Doherty’s claims, but even if it\ndoes not, Doherty’s claims should be alternatively dismissed\nfor failure to state a claim.\n “Whether a claim is barred by res judicata is a question of\nlaw that we review de novo.” Curtis v. Lofy, 914 N.E.2d 248, 254\n(Ill. App. Ct. 2009). “The party asserting res judicata as a pre-\nclusion to the second action bears the burden of showing with\nclarity and certainty what was determined by the prior judg-\nment.” BankFinancial, FSB v. Tandon, 2013 IL App (1st) 113152,\n¶ 19.\n A. Counterclaims and Affirmative Defenses in Illinois Civil\n Procedure\n A brief primer on Illinois civil procedure will help clarify\nthe nature of Doherty’s argument. The Illinois rules provide\nthat a “plaintiff may, at any time before trial or hearing be-\ngins, upon notice to each party who has appeared or each\nsuch party’s attorney, and upon payment of costs, dismiss his\nor her action or any part thereof as to any defendant, without\nprejudice, by order filed in the cause.” 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/2-\n1009(a). “[A] dismissal ‘without prejudice’ signals that there\nwas no final decision on the merits and that the plaintiff is not\nbarred from refiling the action.” Richter v. Prairie Farms Dairy,\nInc., 2016 IL 119518, ¶ 24. The rule also stipulates that a plain-\ntiff’s dismissal of its claims against a defendant “does not dis-\nmiss a pending counterclaim or third party complaint.” 735\nIll. Comp. Stat. 5/2-1009(d). Illinois courts have held that a vol-\nuntary dismissal by the plaintiff is an appealable order. Du-\nbina v. Mesirow Realty Dev., Inc., 687 N.E.2d 871, 874–75 (Ill.\n\f6 No. 18-3133\n\n1997) (a voluntary dismissal terminates an action in its en-\ntirety and renders all final orders immediately appealable).\n Doherty’s claims were styled as affirmative defenses, not\nas counterclaims. That was probably because, under Illinois\ncivil procedure, a defendant must raise affirmative defenses in\nthe answer or reply. See 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/2-613(d). Con-\nversely, counterclaims are permissive in Illinois and can be\nbrought in their own action. See 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/2-608.\nSee Laue v. Leifheit, 473 N.E.2d 939, 943 (Ill. 1984) (describing\nthat section 2–608’s language should be construed as estab-\nlishing permissive counterclaims).\n B. Res judicata in Illinois\n “The doctrine of res judicata bars the refiling of an action\npreviously adjudicated on the merits when the action is di-\nrected against the same parties and involves the same claims.”\nDeLuna v. Treister, 708 N.E.2d 340, 344 (Ill. 1999) (citing Rein v.\nDavid A. Noyes & Co., 665 N.E.2d 1199, 1204 (Ill. 1996)). “Res\njudicata promotes judicial economy by preventing repetitive\nlitigation and [additionally] protects parties from being\nforced to bear the unjust burden of relitigating essentially the\nsame case.” Piagentini v. Ford Motor Co., 901 N.E.2d 986, 990–\n91 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009) (quoting Arvia v. Madigan, 809 N.E.2d\n88, 97 (Ill. 2004) (alteration in original)).\n There are three requirements for res judicata in Illinois: “(1)\na final judgment on the merits … entered in the first lawsuit\nby a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) an identity of causes\nof action exists; (3) the parties or their privies are identical in\nboth lawsuits.” DeLuna, 708 N.E.2d at 344. “The requirement\nof a final order or judgment is a ‘critical’ component in show-\ning the applicability of res judicata.” Richter, 2016 IL 119518 at\n\fNo. 18-3133 7\n\n¶ 22 (citing Hernandez v. Pritikin, 2012 IL 113054, ¶ 41). And\nthe Supreme Court of Illinois has explained that “default\njudgments are always res judicata on the ultimate claim or de-\nmand presented in the complaint.” Hous. Auth. for La Salle Cty.\nv. Young Menʹs Christian Assʹn of Ottawa, 461 N.E.2d 959, 963\n(Ill. 1984).\n Illinois courts have applied res judicata broadly. “The doc-\ntrine extends not only to what was actually decided in the\noriginal action, but also to matters which could have been de-\ncided in that suit.” Doe v. Gleicher, 911 N.E.2d 532, 537 (Ill. App.\nCt. 2009) (quoting Rein, 665 N.E.2d at 1204). However,\n“[e]quity dictates that the doctrine of res judicata will not be\ntechnically applied if to do so would create inequitable and\nunjust results. [It] should not be applied … where it would be\nfundamentally unfair to do so … [and] should only be applied\nas fairness and justice require.” Piagentini, 901 N.E.2d at 990–\n91 (citations and quotations omitted). “Although it is recom-\nmended that the doctrine receive a liberal construction and\nshould be applied without technical restrictions, it has also\nbeen recommended that the doctrine should not be applied so\nrigidly as to defeat the ends of justice.” Fed. Signal Corp. v. SLC\nTechs., Inc., 743 N.E.2d 1066, 1077 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001) (quoting\nThornton v. Williams, 412 N.E.2d 157, 159 (Ill. App. Ct. 1980)).\n C. Doherty’s Claims\n The Illinois circuit court determined that res judicata\napplied because the default judgment against Farano\nconstituted a final judgment on the merits. It stated that\nidentity of parties existed because the bank named Doherty\nas a defendant in the guaranty action, and because the bank\nwas originally the plaintiff in the guaranty action (and the\nother named defendants were its agents and attorneys). The\n\f8 No. 18-3133\n\ntrial court determined that identity of causes existed because\nDoherty raised his affirmative defenses in the guaranty\naction, and the same underlying facts supporting his\naffirmative defenses provided the basis for his claims in the\nlater lawsuit against the bank and its attorneys.\n The circuit court’s opinion relied on Corcoran-Hakala v.\nDowd to establish that res judicata bars Doherty’s claims. See\n840 N.E.2d 286, 293–94 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). In that case, the\nIllinois Appellate Court explained that the common law\nprinciple of compulsory counterclaim applies in some\ninstances in Illinois, even though the statutorily-established\nrules of civil procedure explicitly hold that counterclaims are\npermissive: “res judicata bars a subsequent action if successful\nprosecution of that action would in effect nullify the judgment\nentered in the initial action.” Id. at 294 (citing Restatement\n(Second) of Judgments § 22(2)(b) (1982)); Carey v. Neal, Cortina\n& Associates, 576 N.E.2d 220, 225 (Ill. App. Ct. 1991)\n(describing subsection 22(2)(b) of the Restatement as a\n“common law rule of compulsory counterclaim”). This is true\nif “the defendant’s claim involves the same operative facts as\nthe plaintiff’s claim.” Id. at 293–94 (citing Torcasso v. Standard\nOutdoor Sales, Inc., 597 N.E.2d 772, 775 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992),\nrevʹd on other grounds, 626 N.E.2d 225 (Ill. 1993)).\n We conclude that res judicata should not apply in this case\nfor two main reasons. First, none of the Illinois cases relied on\nby the circuit court or the FDIC address a situation like this\none. And the most illuminating cases—if not exactly square\nwith the posture of this case—suggest that applying the\ndoctrine would be inappropriate. Second, applying the\ndoctrine in this situation neither advances the purposes of res\n\fNo. 18-3133 9\n\njudicata nor meaningfully serves the interests of judicial\neconomy.\n Illinois case law does not support an application of the\ndoctrine in these circumstances. Two wrinkles in this case\ncomplicate the typical res judicata analysis and lead us to\nconclude that the doctrine should not apply here. First, most\nof the cases addressing res judicata in Illinois involve a\nsituation in which a plaintiff in the first action attempts to\nbring the same or similar claims in a later action—not a\nsituation in which a defendant to the first action brings\naffirmative defenses as independent claims in the second\naction. Second, the default judgment applied to a different\ndefendant.1\n The FDIC responds to Doherty’s arguments on appeal by\ndirecting our attention to the broad and liberal application of\nres judicata found throughout Illinois case law. Doherty\nargues that because the circuit court dismissed him without\nprejudice on the bank’s section 2-1009 motion in the guaranty\naction, res judicata should therefore not apply. The FDIC relies\non Rein for the proposition that even though the final\njudgment on the merits did not apply to all the claims in the\nguaranty action, res judicata still applies. But Rein involved a\ncase where, in the first action, plaintiffs received a dismissal\nwith prejudice on some of their claims and voluntarily\ndismissed their remaining claims pursuant to section 2-1009.\n665 N.E.2d at 1205. They later re-filed those claims in a second\n\n 1 The FDIC does give examples of cases in which a defendant in the\nfirst action attempts to bring claims that would have been suitable for an\naffirmative defense in a later action, but this second factor distinguishes\nthem. See, e.g., Henry v. Farmer City State Bank, 808 F.2d 1228, 1235 (7th Cir.\n1986).\n\f10 No. 18-3133\n\naction, engaging in the classic claim-splitting that res judicata\nattempts to prevent. Id. at 1206. Here, Doherty neither made\na section 2-1009 motion nor had a final judgment that\naddressed any of the bank’s claims as they pertained to him\nor his defenses.\n And although we have found no case that directly applies\nto this situation, a string of Illinois cases leads us to conclude\nthat the doctrine should not apply here. “The Illinois Supreme\nCourt has held that if the basis of dismissal against one party\nbears no relationship to the merits of the case, it is\n‘inappropriate to apply the doctrine of res judicata [against]\nanother party to the action.’” Curtis, 914 N.E.2d at 260\n(quoting Downing v. Chicago Transit Auth,, 642 N.E.2d 456, 460\n(Ill. 1994)). In Downing the Supreme Court of Illinois held that\nan order that granted summary judgment in favor of an\nemployee on statute-of-limitations grounds did not preclude\na later suit based on a respondeat superior theory against his\nemployer because the summary judgment order was not\nbased on the merits of the case. According to the court, to label\na summary judgment order based on the statute of limitations\nas “an adjudication on the merits would be the quintessential\nact of exalting form over substance.” 642 N.E.2d at 460.\n Similarly, in DeLuna v. Treister, the court refused to apply\nres judicata in a medical malpractice case for a defendant\nhospital after its doctor obtained an involuntary dismissal\ndue to the plaintiff’s failure to meet statutory pleading\nrequirements. 708 N.E.2d at 348–49. The involuntary\ndismissal with prejudice barred the plaintiff’s subsequent\naction against the doctor, but not the hospital. Id.\n In Leow v. A & B Freight Line, Inc., the court addressed the\nproper interpretation of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 273,\n\fNo. 18-3133 11\n\nwhich explains the effects of involuntary dismissals. 676\nN.E.2d 1284, 1286 (Ill. 1997). The court determined that an\ninvoluntary dismissal against a different party acted as an\nadjudication on the merits against another party only where\n“the prior dismissal must have caused the defendant to\nprepare to address the actual merits of plaintiff’s claim.”\nDeLuna, 708 N.E.2d at 347 (quotations omitted). See Leow, 676\nN.E.2d at 1288.\n The FDIC attempts to distinguish these cases because this\ncase involves neither involuntary dismissal nor vicarious lia-\nbility for employers. And, as we have noted, default judg-\nments are typically considered final judgments on the merits\nfor the purposes of res judicata. Hous. Auth. for La Salle Cty., 461\nN.E.2d at 963.\n But we believe the principles of equity underlying this\nstring of cases may be applied here. In the guaranty action,\nDoherty appeared, filed a response, and raised his affirmative\ndefenses against the bank’s claims. After obtaining its default\njudgment against Farano—and shortly after Doherty received\nthe handwriting expert’s report and threatened to bring a suit\nfor fraud—the bank dropped its claims against Worth and\nDoherty and dismissed those defendants without prejudice.\nThis posture ensured that the bank never had to address or\ndefend itself against Doherty’s fraud allegations.\nAccordingly, because the bank never had to address (and the\ncircuit court likewise never had to consider) Doherty’s fraud\nclaims, we do not believe the default judgment against a\ndifferent defendant barred Doherty’s later action.\n Applying res judicata in this situation also does not\nadvance the purposes of the doctrine. One of those purposes\nis to prevent a second litigation from undermining the prior\n\f12 No. 18-3133\n\njudgment. See Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 22(2)(b)\n(1982) (explaining that a defendant who fails to interpose a\npermissible counterclaim in an action is precluded from\nbringing a subsequent action on that claim if the claim’s\nsuccessful prosecution “would nullify the initial judgment or\nwould impair rights established in the initial action”). The\nFDIC argues that if Doherty were to succeed on his claims of\nfraud, it could undermine the circuit court’s conclusion that\nWorth owed money to the bank and that Farano defaulted on\nhis personal guaranty of the Worth loan. We find that\nargument unpersuasive. The FDIC provides no explanation\nfor how Doherty would have standing to challenge Farano’s\ndefault judgment. And at oral argument, Doherty himself\neven conceded that he likely has no standing to challenge the\ndefault judgment against Farano.\n Additionally, Doherty’s action here seeks redress for the\nbank’s alleged fraud but does not challenge the default\njudgment entered against Farano. Even if Doherty manages\nto prosecute this action successfully, the default judgment\nagainst Farano would go undisturbed. Therefore, the bank’s\ninterest in the previous litigation—its judgment against\nFarano—would remain in place.\n Similarly, as explained above, preventing claim splitting\nserves as one of the ends of applying res judicata. However,\nthat concern is not implicated in a case like this, where\nDoherty was a defendant and did not dismiss the first action\nhimself. See Rein, 665 N.E.2d at 1206 (“[P]laintiffs generally\nare not permitted to split their causes of action. The rule\nagainst claim-splitting, which is an aspect of the law of\npreclusion, prohibits a plaintiff from suing for part of a claim\n\fNo. 18-3133 13\n\nin one action and then suing for the remainder in another\naction.”).\n Nor are concerns about judicial economy implicated by\nallowing Doherty’s claims to proceed. In this case the circuit\ncourt never considered or weighed in on Doherty’s fraud\nclaims because the bank dismissed him without prejudice.\nThe bank never had to litigate these claims in the guaranty\naction—addressing them now will not force the bank into\nredundant litigation.\n Lastly, the FDIC encourages us to affirm the circuit court’s\ndismissal of Doherty’s claims on the alternative grounds that\nhis complaint fails to state a claim. Because neither the Illinois\ntrial court nor the district court have engaged Doherty’s\narguments, we decline to do so now. The district court should\nhave the first opportunity to consider that question.\n III. CONCLUSION\n Based on the foregoing, the circuit court incorrectly deter-\nmined that Doherty’s claims were barred by res judicata. Ac-\ncordingly, we REVERSE the district court’s dismissal of\nDoherty’s claims and REMAND for further proceedings.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Patrick Doherty v. FDIC\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-08-06\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-3133\\nPATRICK J. DOHERTY,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n v.\\n\\nFEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, as receiver for\\nWASHINGTON FEDERAL BANK FOR SAVINGS, et al.,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 18 CV 703 — Joan B. Gottschall, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED MAY 14, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 6, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before FLAUM, KANNE, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.\\n KANNE, Circuit Judge. Washington Federal Bank brought a\\ndefault action against Patrick Doherty, John Farano, Jr., and\\nWorth Conversion, LLC, for notes related to various real es-\\ntate ventures. Doherty raised affirmative defenses on behalf\\nof himself and Worth, but the bank dismissed Doherty and\\nWorth from the action, without prejudice, after obtaining a\\ndefault judgment against Farano. Doherty then attempted to\\n\\f2 No. 18-3133\\n\\nbring this suit against the bank with claims founded on simi-\\nlar grounds as his previously-raised affirmative defenses. But\\nthe Cook County Circuit Court determined that Doherty’s\\nclaims were barred by res judicata thanks to the default judg-\\nment entered against Farano. Doherty appealed to the Illinois\\nAppellate Court, but before his appeal was heard, Washing-\\nton Federal was placed into the Federal Deposit Insurance\\nCorporation’s receivership. The FDIC removed this action to\\nthe district court, which adopted the Illinois Circuit Court’s\\ndecision. Because res judicata does not bar Doherty’s claims,\\nwe vacate and remand for further proceedings.\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n Patrick Doherty and John Farano, Jr., formed Worth Con-\\nversion, LLC. In April 2006, Washington Federal Bank (“the\\nbank”) loaned Worth $400,000 in exchange for Worth’s prom-\\nissory note and Doherty and Farano’s personal guaranties of\\nthe loan. Washington Federal extended the maturity date of\\nthe loan multiple times, but Worth eventually defaulted. The\\nbank subsequently sued Worth, Farano, and Doherty in Cook\\nCounty Circuit Court in March 2014 (the guaranty action).\\nThe twenty-seven count complaint also included counts re-\\nlated to other loans made to another entity affiliated with\\nFarano and Doherty, F & D Services, Inc. But the bank even-\\ntually dismissed those counts and F & D Services from the\\nsuit.\\n Doherty is an attorney and he filed an appearance in the\\nguaranty action on behalf of himself and Worth. In his answer\\nto the bank’s complaint, Doherty raised affirmative defenses,\\nincluding that the bank extended the maturity date of the loan\\n\\fNo. 18-3133 3\\n\\nwithout authorization, that the bank charged fees and an in-\\nterest rate not agreed upon, and that the bank charged exces-\\nsive fees.\\n Farano never appeared, however, and the trial court en-\\ntered a default judgment for the loan balance against Farano\\nfor Count XXVI, which sought judgment on his personal\\nguaranty of the loan, on August 27, 2014. The default judg-\\nment ordered:\\n 1. [Washington Federal’s] Motion for Default and\\n Judgment is granted; 2. [The bank] has proven the\\n damages it incurred and reasonable attorney’s fees\\n and costs; 3. Judgment is entered in favor of [the\\n bank] and against Defendant John Farano Jr., in the\\n TOTAL AMOUNT of $228,739.81 due under the\\n Note; $2,804.50 due in attorney fees and $485.33 in\\n legal costs; 4. There is no just reason to delay the en-\\n forcement of the judgment, appeal, or both.\\n On April 27, 2015, Doherty received a report from a foren-\\nsic document examiner opining that his signature had been\\nforged on loan extension paperwork in 2010. Doherty sent a\\ncopy of the report to the bank’s counsel, advising them that\\nhe intended to file a suit for fraud and other claims. Around\\nthat time, the bank moved the trial court to dismiss its claims\\nagainst Worth and Doherty from the action without preju-\\ndice. The trial court dismissed the bank’s remaining counts\\n(XXV—seeking judgment against Worth on default; and\\nXXVII—seeking judgment against Doherty on his guaranty of\\nthe Worth loan) on June 15, 2015. Doherty did not object to\\nthis order.\\n Over a year later, on June 28, 2016, Doherty filed suit\\nagainst the bank, its president, its corporate secretary, and its\\n\\f4 No. 18-3133\\n\\nattorneys, alleging breach of contract, forgery, excessive fees,\\nfraud, and legal malpractice against the bank’s law firm. He\\nclaimed that during the first trial (the guaranty action), he did\\nnot learn of the bank’s alleged forgery early enough to take\\naction before being dismissed. His suit sought to recover\\ndamages for the fees he incurred defending the guaranty ac-\\ntion. The trial court dismissed Doherty’s complaint, and he\\nfiled an amended complaint alleging the same facts and\\ncounts, but he alleged malicious prosecution instead of mal-\\npractice against the bank’s legal counsel.\\n The bank and its attorneys moved to dismiss Doherty’s\\namended complaint on the grounds of res judicata, lack of\\nstanding, and (on the malicious prosecution count) failure to\\nstate a claim. The trial court dismissed Doherty’s suit, holding\\nthat most of Doherty’s claims were barred by res judicata be-\\ncause he should have brought them in the guaranty action.\\nThe trial court also determined that he failed to state a claim\\nfor malicious prosecution. Doherty appealed to the Illinois\\nAppellate Court. Before the court heard Doherty’s appeal,\\nhowever, Washington Federal was placed into the FDIC’s re-\\nceivership. The FDIC removed this action to the Northern\\nDistrict of Illinois under 12 U.S.C. § 1819(b)(2)(B).\\n II. ANALYSIS\\n The district court adopted the Illinois trial court’s ruling as\\nits own. We therefore review the Illinois trial court’s decision\\nand analyze this appeal under Illinois law. Baek v. Clausen, 886\\nF.3d 652, 660 (7th Cir. 2018). On appeal, Doherty claims that\\nthe trial court erroneously dismissed his claims on the basis\\nof res judicata. His main point seems to be that the bank’s use\\nof Farano’s default judgment to defeat Doherty’s claims trans-\\nformed res judicata from a shield into a sword. In other words,\\n\\fNo. 18-3133 5\\n\\nby holding that Doherty’s claims were barred, the district\\ncourt effectively allowed the bank to kill Doherty’s fraud\\nclaims. The bank argues that the trial court correctly deter-\\nmined that res judicata barred Doherty’s claims, but even if it\\ndoes not, Doherty’s claims should be alternatively dismissed\\nfor failure to state a claim.\\n “Whether a claim is barred by res judicata is a question of\\nlaw that we review de novo.” Curtis v. Lofy, 914 N.E.2d 248, 254\\n(Ill. App. Ct. 2009). “The party asserting res judicata as a pre-\\nclusion to the second action bears the burden of showing with\\nclarity and certainty what was determined by the prior judg-\\nment.” BankFinancial, FSB v. Tandon, 2013 IL App (1st) 113152,\\n¶ 19.\\n A. Counterclaims and Affirmative Defenses in Illinois Civil\\n Procedure\\n A brief primer on Illinois civil procedure will help clarify\\nthe nature of Doherty’s argument. The Illinois rules provide\\nthat a “plaintiff may, at any time before trial or hearing be-\\ngins, upon notice to each party who has appeared or each\\nsuch party’s attorney, and upon payment of costs, dismiss his\\nor her action or any part thereof as to any defendant, without\\nprejudice, by order filed in the cause.” 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/2-\\n1009(a). “[A] dismissal ‘without prejudice’ signals that there\\nwas no final decision on the merits and that the plaintiff is not\\nbarred from refiling the action.” Richter v. Prairie Farms Dairy,\\nInc., 2016 IL 119518, ¶ 24. The rule also stipulates that a plain-\\ntiff’s dismissal of its claims against a defendant “does not dis-\\nmiss a pending counterclaim or third party complaint.” 735\\nIll. Comp. Stat. 5/2-1009(d). Illinois courts have held that a vol-\\nuntary dismissal by the plaintiff is an appealable order. Du-\\nbina v. Mesirow Realty Dev., Inc., 687 N.E.2d 871, 874–75 (Ill.\\n\\f6 No. 18-3133\\n\\n1997) (a voluntary dismissal terminates an action in its en-\\ntirety and renders all final orders immediately appealable).\\n Doherty’s claims were styled as affirmative defenses, not\\nas counterclaims. That was probably because, under Illinois\\ncivil procedure, a defendant must raise affirmative defenses in\\nthe answer or reply. See 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/2-613(d). Con-\\nversely, counterclaims are permissive in Illinois and can be\\nbrought in their own action. See 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/2-608.\\nSee Laue v. Leifheit, 473 N.E.2d 939, 943 (Ill. 1984) (describing\\nthat section 2–608’s language should be construed as estab-\\nlishing permissive counterclaims).\\n B. Res judicata in Illinois\\n “The doctrine of res judicata bars the refiling of an action\\npreviously adjudicated on the merits when the action is di-\\nrected against the same parties and involves the same claims.”\\nDeLuna v. Treister, 708 N.E.2d 340, 344 (Ill. 1999) (citing Rein v.\\nDavid A. Noyes & Co., 665 N.E.2d 1199, 1204 (Ill. 1996)). “Res\\njudicata promotes judicial economy by preventing repetitive\\nlitigation and [additionally] protects parties from being\\nforced to bear the unjust burden of relitigating essentially the\\nsame case.” Piagentini v. Ford Motor Co., 901 N.E.2d 986, 990–\\n91 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009) (quoting Arvia v. Madigan, 809 N.E.2d\\n88, 97 (Ill. 2004) (alteration in original)).\\n There are three requirements for res judicata in Illinois: “(1)\\na final judgment on the merits … entered in the first lawsuit\\nby a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) an identity of causes\\nof action exists; (3) the parties or their privies are identical in\\nboth lawsuits.” DeLuna, 708 N.E.2d at 344. “The requirement\\nof a final order or judgment is a ‘critical’ component in show-\\ning the applicability of res judicata.” Richter, 2016 IL 119518 at\\n\\fNo. 18-3133 7\\n\\n¶ 22 (citing Hernandez v. Pritikin, 2012 IL 113054, ¶ 41). And\\nthe Supreme Court of Illinois has explained that “default\\njudgments are always res judicata on the ultimate claim or de-\\nmand presented in the complaint.” Hous. Auth. for La Salle Cty.\\nv. Young Menʹs Christian Assʹn of Ottawa, 461 N.E.2d 959, 963\\n(Ill. 1984).\\n Illinois courts have applied res judicata broadly. “The doc-\\ntrine extends not only to what was actually decided in the\\noriginal action, but also to matters which could have been de-\\ncided in that suit.” Doe v. Gleicher, 911 N.E.2d 532, 537 (Ill. App.\\nCt. 2009) (quoting Rein, 665 N.E.2d at 1204). However,\\n“[e]quity dictates that the doctrine of res judicata will not be\\ntechnically applied if to do so would create inequitable and\\nunjust results. [It] should not be applied … where it would be\\nfundamentally unfair to do so … [and] should only be applied\\nas fairness and justice require.” Piagentini, 901 N.E.2d at 990–\\n91 (citations and quotations omitted). “Although it is recom-\\nmended that the doctrine receive a liberal construction and\\nshould be applied without technical restrictions, it has also\\nbeen recommended that the doctrine should not be applied so\\nrigidly as to defeat the ends of justice.” Fed. Signal Corp. v. SLC\\nTechs., Inc., 743 N.E.2d 1066, 1077 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001) (quoting\\nThornton v. Williams, 412 N.E.2d 157, 159 (Ill. App. Ct. 1980)).\\n C. Doherty’s Claims\\n The Illinois circuit court determined that res judicata\\napplied because the default judgment against Farano\\nconstituted a final judgment on the merits. It stated that\\nidentity of parties existed because the bank named Doherty\\nas a defendant in the guaranty action, and because the bank\\nwas originally the plaintiff in the guaranty action (and the\\nother named defendants were its agents and attorneys). The\\n\\f8 No. 18-3133\\n\\ntrial court determined that identity of causes existed because\\nDoherty raised his affirmative defenses in the guaranty\\naction, and the same underlying facts supporting his\\naffirmative defenses provided the basis for his claims in the\\nlater lawsuit against the bank and its attorneys.\\n The circuit court’s opinion relied on Corcoran-Hakala v.\\nDowd to establish that res judicata bars Doherty’s claims. See\\n840 N.E.2d 286, 293–94 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). In that case, the\\nIllinois Appellate Court explained that the common law\\nprinciple of compulsory counterclaim applies in some\\ninstances in Illinois, even though the statutorily-established\\nrules of civil procedure explicitly hold that counterclaims are\\npermissive: “res judicata bars a subsequent action if successful\\nprosecution of that action would in effect nullify the judgment\\nentered in the initial action.” Id. at 294 (citing Restatement\\n(Second) of Judgments § 22(2)(b) (1982)); Carey v. Neal, Cortina\\n& Associates, 576 N.E.2d 220, 225 (Ill. App. Ct. 1991)\\n(describing subsection 22(2)(b) of the Restatement as a\\n“common law rule of compulsory counterclaim”). This is true\\nif “the defendant’s claim involves the same operative facts as\\nthe plaintiff’s claim.” Id. at 293–94 (citing Torcasso v. Standard\\nOutdoor Sales, Inc., 597 N.E.2d 772, 775 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992),\\nrevʹd on other grounds, 626 N.E.2d 225 (Ill. 1993)).\\n We conclude that res judicata should not apply in this case\\nfor two main reasons. First, none of the Illinois cases relied on\\nby the circuit court or the FDIC address a situation like this\\none. And the most illuminating cases—if not exactly square\\nwith the posture of this case—suggest that applying the\\ndoctrine would be inappropriate. Second, applying the\\ndoctrine in this situation neither advances the purposes of res\\n\\fNo. 18-3133 9\\n\\njudicata nor meaningfully serves the interests of judicial\\neconomy.\\n Illinois case law does not support an application of the\\ndoctrine in these circumstances. Two wrinkles in this case\\ncomplicate the typical res judicata analysis and lead us to\\nconclude that the doctrine should not apply here. First, most\\nof the cases addressing res judicata in Illinois involve a\\nsituation in which a plaintiff in the first action attempts to\\nbring the same or similar claims in a later action—not a\\nsituation in which a defendant to the first action brings\\naffirmative defenses as independent claims in the second\\naction. Second, the default judgment applied to a different\\ndefendant.1\\n The FDIC responds to Doherty’s arguments on appeal by\\ndirecting our attention to the broad and liberal application of\\nres judicata found throughout Illinois case law. Doherty\\nargues that because the circuit court dismissed him without\\nprejudice on the bank’s section 2-1009 motion in the guaranty\\naction, res judicata should therefore not apply. The FDIC relies\\non Rein for the proposition that even though the final\\njudgment on the merits did not apply to all the claims in the\\nguaranty action, res judicata still applies. But Rein involved a\\ncase where, in the first action, plaintiffs received a dismissal\\nwith prejudice on some of their claims and voluntarily\\ndismissed their remaining claims pursuant to section 2-1009.\\n665 N.E.2d at 1205. They later re-filed those claims in a second\\n\\n 1 The FDIC does give examples of cases in which a defendant in the\\nfirst action attempts to bring claims that would have been suitable for an\\naffirmative defense in a later action, but this second factor distinguishes\\nthem. See, e.g., Henry v. Farmer City State Bank, 808 F.2d 1228, 1235 (7th Cir.\\n1986).\\n\\f10 No. 18-3133\\n\\naction, engaging in the classic claim-splitting that res judicata\\nattempts to prevent. Id. at 1206. Here, Doherty neither made\\na section 2-1009 motion nor had a final judgment that\\naddressed any of the bank’s claims as they pertained to him\\nor his defenses.\\n And although we have found no case that directly applies\\nto this situation, a string of Illinois cases leads us to conclude\\nthat the doctrine should not apply here. “The Illinois Supreme\\nCourt has held that if the basis of dismissal against one party\\nbears no relationship to the merits of the case, it is\\n‘inappropriate to apply the doctrine of res judicata [against]\\nanother party to the action.’” Curtis, 914 N.E.2d at 260\\n(quoting Downing v. Chicago Transit Auth,, 642 N.E.2d 456, 460\\n(Ill. 1994)). In Downing the Supreme Court of Illinois held that\\nan order that granted summary judgment in favor of an\\nemployee on statute-of-limitations grounds did not preclude\\na later suit based on a respondeat superior theory against his\\nemployer because the summary judgment order was not\\nbased on the merits of the case. According to the court, to label\\na summary judgment order based on the statute of limitations\\nas “an adjudication on the merits would be the quintessential\\nact of exalting form over substance.” 642 N.E.2d at 460.\\n Similarly, in DeLuna v. Treister, the court refused to apply\\nres judicata in a medical malpractice case for a defendant\\nhospital after its doctor obtained an involuntary dismissal\\ndue to the plaintiff’s failure to meet statutory pleading\\nrequirements. 708 N.E.2d at 348–49. The involuntary\\ndismissal with prejudice barred the plaintiff’s subsequent\\naction against the doctor, but not the hospital. Id.\\n In Leow v. A & B Freight Line, Inc., the court addressed the\\nproper interpretation of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 273,\\n\\fNo. 18-3133 11\\n\\nwhich explains the effects of involuntary dismissals. 676\\nN.E.2d 1284, 1286 (Ill. 1997). The court determined that an\\ninvoluntary dismissal against a different party acted as an\\nadjudication on the merits against another party only where\\n“the prior dismissal must have caused the defendant to\\nprepare to address the actual merits of plaintiff’s claim.”\\nDeLuna, 708 N.E.2d at 347 (quotations omitted). See Leow, 676\\nN.E.2d at 1288.\\n The FDIC attempts to distinguish these cases because this\\ncase involves neither involuntary dismissal nor vicarious lia-\\nbility for employers. And, as we have noted, default judg-\\nments are typically considered final judgments on the merits\\nfor the purposes of res judicata. Hous. Auth. for La Salle Cty., 461\\nN.E.2d at 963.\\n But we believe the principles of equity underlying this\\nstring of cases may be applied here. In the guaranty action,\\nDoherty appeared, filed a response, and raised his affirmative\\ndefenses against the bank’s claims. After obtaining its default\\njudgment against Farano—and shortly after Doherty received\\nthe handwriting expert’s report and threatened to bring a suit\\nfor fraud—the bank dropped its claims against Worth and\\nDoherty and dismissed those defendants without prejudice.\\nThis posture ensured that the bank never had to address or\\ndefend itself against Doherty’s fraud allegations.\\nAccordingly, because the bank never had to address (and the\\ncircuit court likewise never had to consider) Doherty’s fraud\\nclaims, we do not believe the default judgment against a\\ndifferent defendant barred Doherty’s later action.\\n Applying res judicata in this situation also does not\\nadvance the purposes of the doctrine. One of those purposes\\nis to prevent a second litigation from undermining the prior\\n\\f12 No. 18-3133\\n\\njudgment. See Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 22(2)(b)\\n(1982) (explaining that a defendant who fails to interpose a\\npermissible counterclaim in an action is precluded from\\nbringing a subsequent action on that claim if the claim’s\\nsuccessful prosecution “would nullify the initial judgment or\\nwould impair rights established in the initial action”). The\\nFDIC argues that if Doherty were to succeed on his claims of\\nfraud, it could undermine the circuit court’s conclusion that\\nWorth owed money to the bank and that Farano defaulted on\\nhis personal guaranty of the Worth loan. We find that\\nargument unpersuasive. The FDIC provides no explanation\\nfor how Doherty would have standing to challenge Farano’s\\ndefault judgment. And at oral argument, Doherty himself\\neven conceded that he likely has no standing to challenge the\\ndefault judgment against Farano.\\n Additionally, Doherty’s action here seeks redress for the\\nbank’s alleged fraud but does not challenge the default\\njudgment entered against Farano. Even if Doherty manages\\nto prosecute this action successfully, the default judgment\\nagainst Farano would go undisturbed. Therefore, the bank’s\\ninterest in the previous litigation—its judgment against\\nFarano—would remain in place.\\n Similarly, as explained above, preventing claim splitting\\nserves as one of the ends of applying res judicata. However,\\nthat concern is not implicated in a case like this, where\\nDoherty was a defendant and did not dismiss the first action\\nhimself. See Rein, 665 N.E.2d at 1206 (“[P]laintiffs generally\\nare not permitted to split their causes of action. The rule\\nagainst claim-splitting, which is an aspect of the law of\\npreclusion, prohibits a plaintiff from suing for part of a claim\\n\\fNo. 18-3133 13\\n\\nin one action and then suing for the remainder in another\\naction.”).\\n Nor are concerns about judicial economy implicated by\\nallowing Doherty’s claims to proceed. In this case the circuit\\ncourt never considered or weighed in on Doherty’s fraud\\nclaims because the bank dismissed him without prejudice.\\nThe bank never had to litigate these claims in the guaranty\\naction—addressing them now will not force the bank into\\nredundant litigation.\\n Lastly, the FDIC encourages us to affirm the circuit court’s\\ndismissal of Doherty’s claims on the alternative grounds that\\nhis complaint fails to state a claim. Because neither the Illinois\\ntrial court nor the district court have engaged Doherty’s\\narguments, we decline to do so now. The district court should\\nhave the first opportunity to consider that question.\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n Based on the foregoing, the circuit court incorrectly deter-\\nmined that Doherty’s claims were barred by res judicata. Ac-\\ncordingly, we REVERSE the district court’s dismissal of\\nDoherty’s claims and REMAND for further proceedings.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3793,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4645877,"string":"4,645,877"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"Donald N. TIMM and Mary K. Timm, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GOODYEAR DUNLOP TIRES NORTH AMERICA, LTD., an Ohio-Based Corporation, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Donald Timm v. Goodyear Dunlop Tires North Am"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-08-06"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-2641"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Flaum, Kanne, Scudder\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"SCUDDER, Circuit Judge\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-2641\\nDONALD N. TIMM and MARY K. TIMM,\\n Plaintiffs-Appellants,\\n v.\\n\\nGOODYEAR DUNLOP TIRES NORTH AMERICA, LTD.,\\nan Ohio-based Corporation, et al.,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division.\\n No. 2:14-cv-232 — Philip P. Simon, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED APRIL 5, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 6, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before FLAUM, KANNE, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.\\n SCUDDER, Circuit Judge. Donald and Mary Timm sustained\\nserious injuries in a horrific motorcycle accident. Believing de-\\nfects with the motorcycle and its rear tire caused the acci-\\ndent—and that their injuries were especially severe because\\nof a defect with their helmets—the Timms brought a products\\nliability action under Indiana law against numerous defend-\\nants involved in the sale and manufacture of the motorcycle,\\n\\f2 No. 18-2641\\n\\nits rear tire, and the helmets they wore at the time of the acci-\\ndent. Concluding that the Timms failed to present admissible\\nexpert testimony to support their claims, the district court en-\\ntered summary judgment for the defendants. We affirm.\\n I\\n On July 10, 2013, Donald and Mary Timm set off on a\\ncross-country trip on their Harley-Davidson Ultra Classic.\\nThe Timms intended to drive from their home in Dyer, Indi-\\nana to Salt Lake City, Utah. While crossing Nebraska, the cou-\\nple suffered a catastrophic accident when the motorcycle’s\\nrear tire sustained a puncture and rapidly deflated, leading\\nDonald to lose control of the motorcycle and crash into a con-\\ncrete median barrier. Mary flew off the motorcycle while Don-\\nald remained attached to the bike as it slid along the highway.\\nThough both riders were wearing helmets, each sustained se-\\nrious head injuries. In addition to suffering a traumatic brain\\ninjury, Donald sustained facial fractures and a cervical spine\\ninjury.\\n A few months later, the Timms received notice that the\\nhelmets they were wearing at the time of the accident—Ultra\\nLow Profile Outlaw Motorcycle Half Helmets—were recalled.\\nThe Timms purchased the helmets two years earlier. Mary\\npurchased her helmet through a website called Leath-\\nerUp.com (owned by Nanal, Inc.). Donald purchased his hel-\\nmet through a different internet retailer, which is not a party\\nto this suit. A company named Tegol imported and distrib-\\nuted both helmets. In its recall notice, Tegol explained that the\\nOutlaw helmets failed to conform to certain Department of\\nTransportation standards and warned that riders “may not be\\nadequately protected in the event of a crash.”\\n\\fNo. 18-2641 3\\n\\n The Timms then brought a products liability action\\nagainst Tegol, Nanal, and fourteen other corporate and indi-\\nvidual defendants involved in the manufacture, distribution,\\nand sale of Outlaw helmets (which we will collectively call the\\nhelmet defendants). Advancing claims under the Indiana\\nProducts Liability Act, the Timms alleged that their injuries\\nwould have been less severe had their helmets complied with\\nfederal safety standards and that the helmet defendants were\\nnegligent in their recall efforts. The Timms also asserted\\nclaims against Harley-Davidson, the motorcycle manufac-\\nturer, and Goodyear Dunlop (now known as Sumitomo Rub-\\nber USA), the tire manufacturer, contending that defects in the\\nmotorcycle and rear tire caused the accident.\\n Beginning with their helmets, the Timms pressed several\\nclaims, including design defect and manufacturing defect. To\\nshow that the helmets enhanced their injuries, the Timms em-\\nphasized the recall as well as the sheer severity of the injuries\\nthey sustained in the accident. But they did not present any\\nexpert testimony to show that, because of a defect with their\\nhelmets, their injuries were worse than they otherwise would\\nhave experienced in such a severe motorcycle crash. This\\nomission, the district court concluded, was fatal to their\\nclaims because “a lay juror would not be able to distinguish\\nbetween the injuries caused by the motorcycle accident and\\nthe enhanced injuries caused by the alleged defect in the hel-\\nmets without engaging in speculation.”\\n This conclusion, the district court reasoned, found support\\nin the fact that the helmet defendants offered their own med-\\nical expert, who opined that the Timms’ injuries were the type\\nhe would expect following such a serious motorcycle acci-\\ndent, even if they had been wearing helmets that complied\\n\\f4 No. 18-2641\\n\\nwith all safety standards. The court accordingly entered sum-\\nmary judgment in favor of the helmet defendants on the\\nTimms’ manufacturing and design defect claims. The court\\nalso entered judgment for the defendants on the Timms’\\nclaims alleging negligent recall and failure to comply with\\nfederal safety standards, concluding that the Indiana Prod-\\nucts Liability Act permits neither claim.\\n Turning to the allegations against Harley-Davidson and\\nGoodyear, the Timms asserted that the motorcycle’s rear tire\\n(a Dunlop D402 tire) was defective and unreasonably danger-\\nous because, following a puncture, it allowed for both exces-\\nsive air leakage and the tire to unseat—or come free—from its\\nrim. These defects, they maintained, caused Mr. Timm to lose\\ncontrol of the motorcycle and crash. The Timms further al-\\nleged that the motorcycle itself was defectively designed be-\\ncause it lacked a tire pressure monitoring system, which\\nwould have alerted Donald to the sudden loss of air in the tire\\nbefore he lost control. To support these claims, the Timms\\nproposed two experts: William Woehrle, a tire specialist, and\\nDr. Daniel Lee, an accident reconstructionist. In his report,\\nWoehrle opined on how and when the tire became unseated\\nfrom the rim and the need for a tire pressure monitoring sys-\\ntem. Dr. Lee likewise sought to testify about the ultimate\\ncause of the accident and to share his opinion that every mo-\\ntorcycle should be equipped with a tire pressure monitoring\\nsystem.\\n Harley-Davidson and Goodyear filed motions to exclude\\nWoehrle’s and Lee’s opinions, arguing they lacked the relia-\\nbility required by Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v.\\nMerrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Follow-\\ning a hearing, the district court agreed. The court concluded\\n\\fNo. 18-2641 5\\n\\nthat Woehrle’s opinion that manufacturing defects caused the\\ntire to unseat from the rim upon being punctured “appear[ed]\\nto be based on nothing more than his subjective belief and un-\\nsupported speculation,” and thus “fail[ed] to adhere to any of\\nthe Daubert guideposts.” The court also excluded Woehrle’s\\nopinion on the tire pressure monitoring system, reasoning\\nthat while Woehrle had expertise with respect to tires, he\\nlacked qualifications related to motorcycles more generally.\\nThe district court judge also determined that Woehrle’s opin-\\nions failed to comport with Rule 702 “because they [were] not\\nbased on scientifically valid methodologies.”\\n The court similarly excluded Dr. Lee’s testimony, finding\\nthat he lacked tire-related qualifications, and, in any event, his\\nmethodology with respect to both the tire defects and the tire\\npressure monitoring system lacked the reliability required by\\nDaubert.\\n Without expert testimony to support any of their claims,\\nthe court granted summary judgment for all defendants on all\\nof the Timms’ claims.\\n II\\n The Timms challenge the district court’s conclusions re-\\ngarding the need for expert testimony on their helmet claims\\nand the adequacy of their proposed expert testimony for their\\nmotorcycle and tire claims.\\n A\\n We begin with the helmet claims. While the Timms ini-\\ntially sued more than a dozen defendants, by summary judg-\\nment, only one corporate defendant remained—Nanal, Inc.\\nRecall that Nanal owns and operates the website where Mary\\nTimm purchased her helmet. Because Donald Timm\\n\\f6 No. 18-2641\\n\\npurchased his helmet on a different website, and thus not\\nfrom a supplier named as a defendant, we consider the helmet\\nclaims only with respect to Mary.\\n The parties agree that the Indiana Products Liability Act\\ngoverns the Timms’ claims. See Ind. Code § 34-20-1-1. Under\\nthe Act, “a plaintiff must prove that a product was placed into\\nthe stream of commerce in a defective condition unreasonably\\ndangerous to the user and that plaintiff's injuries were caused\\nby this dangerous product.” Campbell Hausfeld/Scott Fetzer Co.\\nv. Johnson, 109 N.E.3d 953, 956 (Ind. 2018).\\n The Timms contend that Mary’s helmet was unreasonably\\ndangerous within the meaning of the Act due to design and\\nmanufacturing defects and a related failure to warn. To sur-\\nvive summary judgment under each of these theories, Indiana\\nlaw required the Timms to show that the alleged defects prox-\\nimately caused Mary’s injuries. See Piltch v. Ford Motor Co.,\\n778 F.3d 628, 632 (7th Cir. 2015) (citing Ford Motor Co. v. Rush-\\nford, 868 N.E.2d 806, 810 (Ind. 2007)). The Timms sought to do\\nso by invoking the doctrine of “crashworthiness,” an ap-\\nproach to causation that “expands the proximate cause re-\\nquirement to include enhanced injuries” caused by a defective\\nproduct. Green v. Ford Motor Co., 942 N.E.2d 791, 793–94 (Ind.\\n2011) (quoting Miller v. Todd, 551 N.E.2d 1139, 1142 (Ind.\\n1990)). Put another way, the doctrine applies to situations\\nwhere, as here, the allegedly defective product did not cause\\nthe initial accident and any and all resulting injuries, but ra-\\nther increased or enhanced the severity of a plaintiff’s injuries.\\nSee id.\\n The Timms contend that Mary’s injuries from the crash\\nwere more severe than they would have been had her helmet\\nmet all federal safety regulations. To show that defects in the\\n\\fNo. 18-2641 7\\n\\nhelmet enhanced her injuries, the Timms presented the dis-\\ntrict court with her medical records. While this evidence cer-\\ntainly confirmed that Mary suffered very serious head injuries\\nin the accident, we agree with the district court that the rec-\\nords alone failed to distinguish those injuries that would have\\nresulted from any similar crash from any specific enhanced\\ninjuries Mary sustained as a result of the allegedly defective\\nhelmet. While plaintiffs are not always required to provide\\nexpert testimony to establish proximate causation, see U–Haul\\nInt’l., Inc. v. Nulls Machine & Mfg. Shop, 736 N.E.2d 271, 285 n.3\\n(Ind. Ct. App. 2000), the district court correctly concluded that\\nIndiana law required expert testimony here because distin-\\nguishing expected from enhanced injuries was an inquiry be-\\nyond the understanding of lay jurors, see Piltch, 778 F.3d at\\n632.\\n The district court’s reasoning finds sound support in our\\ncaselaw. We have previously held that when a plaintiff seeks\\nunder Indiana law to distinguish between ordinary and en-\\nhanced injuries, expert testimony is necessary to prevent the\\njury from engaging in guesswork. Id. at 634. In Piltch v. Ford\\nMotor Co., for example, the plaintiffs brought manufacturing\\nand design defect claims under the Indiana Products Liability\\nAct related to the air bags’ failure to deploy in a car accident.\\nSee id. Yet because the plaintiffs failed to present expert testi-\\nmony as to their injuries, we affirmed summary judgment in\\nfavor of the car manufacturer, explaining that without any ex-\\npert testimony, a “lay juror could not distinguish between the\\ninjuries caused by the collision and the enhanced injuries\\ncaused by the air bags' failure to deploy without engaging in\\npure speculation.” Id.\\n\\f8 No. 18-2641\\n\\n All agree that Mary Timm suffered severe injuries. But\\nwithout the assistance of an expert, a juror would be unable\\nto distinguish between those injuries caused by the crash—in\\nother words, the injuries anyone in this type of accident\\nwould have suffered—and any enhanced or more severe in-\\njuries caused by the defective helmet. Summary judgment\\nwas therefore proper on the Timms’ design defect and manu-\\nfacturing defect claims.\\n For the sake of completeness, we address the failure-to-\\nwarn claim the Timms advanced based on allegations that the\\ndefendants delayed issuing the helmet recall notice. The dis-\\ntrict court considered this a claim of negligent recall and en-\\ntered summary judgment for the helmet defendants because\\nit found no support for such claims under Indiana law. Be-\\ncause the Timms do not address this argument on appeal, we\\nconsider it waived. See Mahaffey v. Ramos, 588 F.3d 1142, 1146\\n(7th Cir. 2009) (declining to consider claims not adequately\\nbriefed).\\n B\\n The Timms next argue that summary judgment against\\nHarley-Davidson and Goodyear was improper because the\\ndistrict court erred in excluding the testimony of their experts,\\nWilliam Woehrle and Dr. Daniel Lee.\\n At the time of the accident, the Timms were traveling cross\\ncountry on their 2006 Harley-Davidson Ultra Classic Motor-\\ncycle. It is undisputed that the rear tire—manufactured by\\nGoodyear Dunlop and branded with the name Harley-Da-\\nvidson—was punctured by a road hazard and began to de-\\nflate, eventually unseating from its rim. The issue at the heart\\nof the Timms’ claims requires pinpointing exactly when the\\n\\fNo. 18-2641 9\\n\\nrubber unseated from the rim. For their part, the Timms con-\\ntend that the tire’s unseating occurred nearly instantly be-\\ncause of defects and, in turn, that the unseating caused Don-\\nald to lose control of the motorcycle and crash. The defend-\\nants urge a contrary view. They resist that the unseating im-\\nmediately followed the puncture and instead maintain that\\nthe motorcycle crash itself is what caused the tire to unseat\\nfrom the rim. The Timms rightly recognized that answering\\nthis causation question required expert testimony. Toward\\nthat end, they offered the opinions of Woehrle and Lee, which\\nthe district court ultimately excluded.\\n Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert govern the ad-\\nmissibility of expert testimony. Under this framework, a trial\\njudge, as a gatekeeping matter, is responsible for ensuring\\nthat proposed expert testimony “is not only relevant, but reli-\\nable.” Daubert, 509 U.S. at 589. In assessing reliability, “the\\nrole of the court is to determine whether the expert is qualified\\nin the relevant field and to examine the methodology the ex-\\npert has used in reaching his conclusions.” Smith v. Ford Motor\\nCo., 215 F.3d 713, 718 (7th Cir. 2000).\\n Although reliability must be assessed case by case, Daubert\\nidentified a non-exhaustive list of factors to aid the analysis.\\nRelevant considerations include not only whether the expert’s\\ntheory “can be (and has been) tested,” but also whether it has\\nbeen “subjected to peer review and publication.” 509 U.S. at\\n593. Other potential considerations include “the known or po-\\ntential rate of error” and whether the theory or technique has\\nachieved “general acceptance” in the relevant expert commu-\\nnity. Id. at 594–95. No one factor is dispositive, however, and\\n“the Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized [that] the\\nRule 702 test is a flexible one.” Smith, 215 F.3d at 719. The\\n\\f10 No. 18-2641\\n\\nCourt has likewise underscored that the correct inquiry fo-\\ncuses not on “the ultimate correctness of the expert’s conclu-\\nsions,” but rather on “the soundness and care with which the\\nexpert arrived at her opinion.” Schultz v. Akzo Nobel Paints,\\nLLC, 721 F.3d 426, 431 (7th Cir. 2013) (citing Daubert, 509 U.S.\\nat 595).\\n Faced as we are here with a challenge to a district court’s\\nexclusion of expert testimony, our review proceeds in two\\nsteps. We “review de novo whether a district judge has fol-\\nlowed Rule 702 and Daubert” and, if the court correctly “ap-\\nplied the Rule 702/Daubert framework, we [then] review [its]\\ndecision to admit or exclude expert testimony for abuse of dis-\\ncretion.” Haley v. Kolbe & Kolbe Millwork Co., 863 F.3d 600, 611\\n(7th Cir. 2017).\\n We find no errors here. In response to the defendants’ mo-\\ntions to exclude Woehrle’s and Lee’s testimony, the district\\ncourt held a Daubert hearing. The court used the hearing to\\nprobe Woehrle about the basis for his opinions, the method-\\nology he employed to formulate his theories, and the poten-\\ntial rate of error of his approach—all proper considerations\\nunder Rule 702 and Daubert. In its written decision, the court\\nfurther conveyed its understanding of the Rule and Daubert\\nfactors by accurately articulating them and proceeding to ap-\\nply them to Woehrle’s and Lee’s testimony and opinions. See\\nClark v. River Metals Recycling, 929 F.3d 434, 438 (7th Cir. 2019).\\nThere is no question the district court applied the correct evi-\\ndentiary framework.\\n Turning to the court’s rulings, we see no abuse of discre-\\ntion with the exclusion of Woehrle’s and Lee’s testimony. In\\nhis report and testimony, Woehrle posited that the Timms’\\nmotorcycle accident was the result of the tire unseating from\\n\\fNo. 18-2641 11\\n\\nits rim. He further opined that the unseating occurred because\\nthere was excess “flash” in the bead area (the edge of the tire\\nthat sits on the wheel rim) and insufficient rubber covering\\nthe chafer strip (a reinforcement of the bead area), which\\nweakened the fit between the tire and the rim. Woehrle testi-\\nfied that he arrived at this conclusion by conducting a physi-\\ncal examination of the tire and wheel. When pressed about his\\nmethodology, however, Woehrle conceded that he could\\npoint to no empirical data or controlled experiments to sup-\\nport his opinions. He further acknowledged that he had not\\ndone any testing to validate his opinion, was unaware of any\\nrelevant tests conducted by others, and knew of no way others\\ncould objectively replicate his approach.\\n On this evidence, the district court was well within its dis-\\ncretion to exclude Woerhle’s opinions about the cause of the\\ntire unseating. To satisfy the requirements of Rule 702 and\\nDaubert, Woerhle needed to show that his conclusions were\\nthe fruit of a rigorous, objectively-verifiable approach—some-\\nthing more than mere speculation. While Woerhle may well\\nhave had the experience and knowledge to make this show-\\ning, he failed to do so. All of this leads to underscore anew\\nthat even a “supremely qualified expert cannot waltz into the\\ncourtroom and render opinions unless those opinions are\\nbased upon some recognized scientific method.” Smith, 215\\nF.3d at 718 (quoting Clark v. Takata Corp., 192 F.3d 750, 759 n.5\\n(7th Cir. 1999)). The record amply supports the district court’s\\nconclusion that the Timms failed to establish that Woehrle’s\\nopinions were sufficiently reliable.\\n Nor do we see any abuse of discretion in the district\\ncourt’s exclusion of Dr. Lee’s opinions regarding the cause of\\nthe crash. In his report, Dr. Lee opined that Mr. Timm lost\\n\\f12 No. 18-2641\\n\\ncontrol of the motorcycle because the rear tire started to\\n“hop.” This hopping, Lee maintained, was the result of the\\ntire unseating from the rim. In addition to questioning Lee’s\\nqualifications with respect to the functioning of tires and how\\nthey can unseat from a rim, the district court concluded that\\nLee’s methodology did not comport with Daubert because Lee\\nfailed to point to any test replicating the conditions under\\nwhich the rubber beading would have come unseated or any\\ntesting to support his theory that bead unseating would cause\\na motorcycle to hop. Lee likewise failed to identify any scien-\\ntific literature to support his opinion. In the absence of any-\\nthing to support his conclusions, the district court acted\\nwithin its discretion in excluding Dr. Lee’s opinions about the\\ncause of the unseating.\\n Finally, we consider the court’s exclusion of Woehrle’s\\nand Lee’s testimony regarding the tire pressure monitoring\\nsystem. The Timms alleged that the motorcycle was defec-\\ntively designed because it should have been equipped with\\nsuch a monitoring system. They sought to support this claim\\nwith testimony from both Woehrle and Lee, who opined that\\nthe accident would not have happened if the motorcycle came\\nequipped with such a system.\\n The district court concluded that neither expert possessed\\nthe requisite qualifications to offer such testimony. Here, too,\\nwe find no abuse of discretion. Though Woehrle has expertise\\nwith the design and operation of tires, the record supports the\\ndistrict court’s conclusion that this knowledge and experience\\ndoes not extend to motorcycles. Indeed, Woehrle himself\\nacknowledged that he is not an expert in the design of tire\\npressure monitoring systems for motorcycles and he has\\nnever conducted any research on this topic. While the court\\n\\fNo. 18-2641 13\\n\\nrecognized that Dr. Lee did have significant experience with\\nmotorcycles, Lee testified during his deposition that he lacked\\nfamiliarity with tire pressure monitoring systems. Given this\\nadmission, the district court’s assessment of Lee’s qualifica-\\ntions—and its decision to exclude his testimony—reflected no\\nabuse of discretion.\\n Because the Timms’ manufacturing and design defect\\nclaims against Harley-Davidson and Goodyear rested on\\nWoehrle’s and Lee’s testimony, the district court’s evidentiary\\nrulings defeated those claims. The same evidentiary shortfalls\\ndefeated the Timms’ claim based on a failure to warn.\\n * * *\\n What happened here was tragic. Donald and Mary Timm\\nsuffered extremely serious injuries in an extremely serious\\nmotorcycle accident. We have no doubt that these injuries\\nhave impacted their lives in substantial and lasting ways.\\nWhat we cannot say, though, is that the district court commit-\\nted any error in rejecting their legal claims. So we are left to\\nAFFIRM.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4423130/\", \"author_raw\": \"SCUDDER, Circuit Judge\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"FLAUM"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"KANNE"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"SCUDDER"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645877/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":8,"string":"8"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Donald N. TIMM and Mary K. Timm, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GOODYEAR DUNLOP TIRES NORTH AMERICA, LTD., an Ohio-Based Corporation, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-08-06\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-2641\nDONALD N. TIMM and MARY K. TIMM,\n Plaintiffs-Appellants,\n v.\n\nGOODYEAR DUNLOP TIRES NORTH AMERICA, LTD.,\nan Ohio-based Corporation, et al.,\n Defendants-Appellees.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division.\n No. 2:14-cv-232 — Philip P. Simon, Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED APRIL 5, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 6, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before FLAUM, KANNE, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.\n SCUDDER, Circuit Judge. Donald and Mary Timm sustained\nserious injuries in a horrific motorcycle accident. Believing de-\nfects with the motorcycle and its rear tire caused the acci-\ndent—and that their injuries were especially severe because\nof a defect with their helmets—the Timms brought a products\nliability action under Indiana law against numerous defend-\nants involved in the sale and manufacture of the motorcycle,\n\f2 No. 18-2641\n\nits rear tire, and the helmets they wore at the time of the acci-\ndent. Concluding that the Timms failed to present admissible\nexpert testimony to support their claims, the district court en-\ntered summary judgment for the defendants. We affirm.\n I\n On July 10, 2013, Donald and Mary Timm set off on a\ncross-country trip on their Harley-Davidson Ultra Classic.\nThe Timms intended to drive from their home in Dyer, Indi-\nana to Salt Lake City, Utah. While crossing Nebraska, the cou-\nple suffered a catastrophic accident when the motorcycle’s\nrear tire sustained a puncture and rapidly deflated, leading\nDonald to lose control of the motorcycle and crash into a con-\ncrete median barrier. Mary flew off the motorcycle while Don-\nald remained attached to the bike as it slid along the highway.\nThough both riders were wearing helmets, each sustained se-\nrious head injuries. In addition to suffering a traumatic brain\ninjury, Donald sustained facial fractures and a cervical spine\ninjury.\n A few months later, the Timms received notice that the\nhelmets they were wearing at the time of the accident—Ultra\nLow Profile Outlaw Motorcycle Half Helmets—were recalled.\nThe Timms purchased the helmets two years earlier. Mary\npurchased her helmet through a website called Leath-\nerUp.com (owned by Nanal, Inc.). Donald purchased his hel-\nmet through a different internet retailer, which is not a party\nto this suit. A company named Tegol imported and distrib-\nuted both helmets. In its recall notice, Tegol explained that the\nOutlaw helmets failed to conform to certain Department of\nTransportation standards and warned that riders “may not be\nadequately protected in the event of a crash.”\n\fNo. 18-2641 3\n\n The Timms then brought a products liability action\nagainst Tegol, Nanal, and fourteen other corporate and indi-\nvidual defendants involved in the manufacture, distribution,\nand sale of Outlaw helmets (which we will collectively call the\nhelmet defendants). Advancing claims under the Indiana\nProducts Liability Act, the Timms alleged that their injuries\nwould have been less severe had their helmets complied with\nfederal safety standards and that the helmet defendants were\nnegligent in their recall efforts. The Timms also asserted\nclaims against Harley-Davidson, the motorcycle manufac-\nturer, and Goodyear Dunlop (now known as Sumitomo Rub-\nber USA), the tire manufacturer, contending that defects in the\nmotorcycle and rear tire caused the accident.\n Beginning with their helmets, the Timms pressed several\nclaims, including design defect and manufacturing defect. To\nshow that the helmets enhanced their injuries, the Timms em-\nphasized the recall as well as the sheer severity of the injuries\nthey sustained in the accident. But they did not present any\nexpert testimony to show that, because of a defect with their\nhelmets, their injuries were worse than they otherwise would\nhave experienced in such a severe motorcycle crash. This\nomission, the district court concluded, was fatal to their\nclaims because “a lay juror would not be able to distinguish\nbetween the injuries caused by the motorcycle accident and\nthe enhanced injuries caused by the alleged defect in the hel-\nmets without engaging in speculation.”\n This conclusion, the district court reasoned, found support\nin the fact that the helmet defendants offered their own med-\nical expert, who opined that the Timms’ injuries were the type\nhe would expect following such a serious motorcycle acci-\ndent, even if they had been wearing helmets that complied\n\f4 No. 18-2641\n\nwith all safety standards. The court accordingly entered sum-\nmary judgment in favor of the helmet defendants on the\nTimms’ manufacturing and design defect claims. The court\nalso entered judgment for the defendants on the Timms’\nclaims alleging negligent recall and failure to comply with\nfederal safety standards, concluding that the Indiana Prod-\nucts Liability Act permits neither claim.\n Turning to the allegations against Harley-Davidson and\nGoodyear, the Timms asserted that the motorcycle’s rear tire\n(a Dunlop D402 tire) was defective and unreasonably danger-\nous because, following a puncture, it allowed for both exces-\nsive air leakage and the tire to unseat—or come free—from its\nrim. These defects, they maintained, caused Mr. Timm to lose\ncontrol of the motorcycle and crash. The Timms further al-\nleged that the motorcycle itself was defectively designed be-\ncause it lacked a tire pressure monitoring system, which\nwould have alerted Donald to the sudden loss of air in the tire\nbefore he lost control. To support these claims, the Timms\nproposed two experts: William Woehrle, a tire specialist, and\nDr. Daniel Lee, an accident reconstructionist. In his report,\nWoehrle opined on how and when the tire became unseated\nfrom the rim and the need for a tire pressure monitoring sys-\ntem. Dr. Lee likewise sought to testify about the ultimate\ncause of the accident and to share his opinion that every mo-\ntorcycle should be equipped with a tire pressure monitoring\nsystem.\n Harley-Davidson and Goodyear filed motions to exclude\nWoehrle’s and Lee’s opinions, arguing they lacked the relia-\nbility required by Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v.\nMerrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Follow-\ning a hearing, the district court agreed. The court concluded\n\fNo. 18-2641 5\n\nthat Woehrle’s opinion that manufacturing defects caused the\ntire to unseat from the rim upon being punctured “appear[ed]\nto be based on nothing more than his subjective belief and un-\nsupported speculation,” and thus “fail[ed] to adhere to any of\nthe Daubert guideposts.” The court also excluded Woehrle’s\nopinion on the tire pressure monitoring system, reasoning\nthat while Woehrle had expertise with respect to tires, he\nlacked qualifications related to motorcycles more generally.\nThe district court judge also determined that Woehrle’s opin-\nions failed to comport with Rule 702 “because they [were] not\nbased on scientifically valid methodologies.”\n The court similarly excluded Dr. Lee’s testimony, finding\nthat he lacked tire-related qualifications, and, in any event, his\nmethodology with respect to both the tire defects and the tire\npressure monitoring system lacked the reliability required by\nDaubert.\n Without expert testimony to support any of their claims,\nthe court granted summary judgment for all defendants on all\nof the Timms’ claims.\n II\n The Timms challenge the district court’s conclusions re-\ngarding the need for expert testimony on their helmet claims\nand the adequacy of their proposed expert testimony for their\nmotorcycle and tire claims.\n A\n We begin with the helmet claims. While the Timms ini-\ntially sued more than a dozen defendants, by summary judg-\nment, only one corporate defendant remained—Nanal, Inc.\nRecall that Nanal owns and operates the website where Mary\nTimm purchased her helmet. Because Donald Timm\n\f6 No. 18-2641\n\npurchased his helmet on a different website, and thus not\nfrom a supplier named as a defendant, we consider the helmet\nclaims only with respect to Mary.\n The parties agree that the Indiana Products Liability Act\ngoverns the Timms’ claims. See Ind. Code § 34-20-1-1. Under\nthe Act, “a plaintiff must prove that a product was placed into\nthe stream of commerce in a defective condition unreasonably\ndangerous to the user and that plaintiff's injuries were caused\nby this dangerous product.” Campbell Hausfeld/Scott Fetzer Co.\nv. Johnson, 109 N.E.3d 953, 956 (Ind. 2018).\n The Timms contend that Mary’s helmet was unreasonably\ndangerous within the meaning of the Act due to design and\nmanufacturing defects and a related failure to warn. To sur-\nvive summary judgment under each of these theories, Indiana\nlaw required the Timms to show that the alleged defects prox-\nimately caused Mary’s injuries. See Piltch v. Ford Motor Co.,\n778 F.3d 628, 632 (7th Cir. 2015) (citing Ford Motor Co. v. Rush-\nford, 868 N.E.2d 806, 810 (Ind. 2007)). The Timms sought to do\nso by invoking the doctrine of “crashworthiness,” an ap-\nproach to causation that “expands the proximate cause re-\nquirement to include enhanced injuries” caused by a defective\nproduct. Green v. Ford Motor Co., 942 N.E.2d 791, 793–94 (Ind.\n2011) (quoting Miller v. Todd, 551 N.E.2d 1139, 1142 (Ind.\n1990)). Put another way, the doctrine applies to situations\nwhere, as here, the allegedly defective product did not cause\nthe initial accident and any and all resulting injuries, but ra-\nther increased or enhanced the severity of a plaintiff’s injuries.\nSee id.\n The Timms contend that Mary’s injuries from the crash\nwere more severe than they would have been had her helmet\nmet all federal safety regulations. To show that defects in the\n\fNo. 18-2641 7\n\nhelmet enhanced her injuries, the Timms presented the dis-\ntrict court with her medical records. While this evidence cer-\ntainly confirmed that Mary suffered very serious head injuries\nin the accident, we agree with the district court that the rec-\nords alone failed to distinguish those injuries that would have\nresulted from any similar crash from any specific enhanced\ninjuries Mary sustained as a result of the allegedly defective\nhelmet. While plaintiffs are not always required to provide\nexpert testimony to establish proximate causation, see U–Haul\nInt’l., Inc. v. Nulls Machine & Mfg. Shop, 736 N.E.2d 271, 285 n.3\n(Ind. Ct. App. 2000), the district court correctly concluded that\nIndiana law required expert testimony here because distin-\nguishing expected from enhanced injuries was an inquiry be-\nyond the understanding of lay jurors, see Piltch, 778 F.3d at\n632.\n The district court’s reasoning finds sound support in our\ncaselaw. We have previously held that when a plaintiff seeks\nunder Indiana law to distinguish between ordinary and en-\nhanced injuries, expert testimony is necessary to prevent the\njury from engaging in guesswork. Id. at 634. In Piltch v. Ford\nMotor Co., for example, the plaintiffs brought manufacturing\nand design defect claims under the Indiana Products Liability\nAct related to the air bags’ failure to deploy in a car accident.\nSee id. Yet because the plaintiffs failed to present expert testi-\nmony as to their injuries, we affirmed summary judgment in\nfavor of the car manufacturer, explaining that without any ex-\npert testimony, a “lay juror could not distinguish between the\ninjuries caused by the collision and the enhanced injuries\ncaused by the air bags' failure to deploy without engaging in\npure speculation.” Id.\n\f8 No. 18-2641\n\n All agree that Mary Timm suffered severe injuries. But\nwithout the assistance of an expert, a juror would be unable\nto distinguish between those injuries caused by the crash—in\nother words, the injuries anyone in this type of accident\nwould have suffered—and any enhanced or more severe in-\njuries caused by the defective helmet. Summary judgment\nwas therefore proper on the Timms’ design defect and manu-\nfacturing defect claims.\n For the sake of completeness, we address the failure-to-\nwarn claim the Timms advanced based on allegations that the\ndefendants delayed issuing the helmet recall notice. The dis-\ntrict court considered this a claim of negligent recall and en-\ntered summary judgment for the helmet defendants because\nit found no support for such claims under Indiana law. Be-\ncause the Timms do not address this argument on appeal, we\nconsider it waived. See Mahaffey v. Ramos, 588 F.3d 1142, 1146\n(7th Cir. 2009) (declining to consider claims not adequately\nbriefed).\n B\n The Timms next argue that summary judgment against\nHarley-Davidson and Goodyear was improper because the\ndistrict court erred in excluding the testimony of their experts,\nWilliam Woehrle and Dr. Daniel Lee.\n At the time of the accident, the Timms were traveling cross\ncountry on their 2006 Harley-Davidson Ultra Classic Motor-\ncycle. It is undisputed that the rear tire—manufactured by\nGoodyear Dunlop and branded with the name Harley-Da-\nvidson—was punctured by a road hazard and began to de-\nflate, eventually unseating from its rim. The issue at the heart\nof the Timms’ claims requires pinpointing exactly when the\n\fNo. 18-2641 9\n\nrubber unseated from the rim. For their part, the Timms con-\ntend that the tire’s unseating occurred nearly instantly be-\ncause of defects and, in turn, that the unseating caused Don-\nald to lose control of the motorcycle and crash. The defend-\nants urge a contrary view. They resist that the unseating im-\nmediately followed the puncture and instead maintain that\nthe motorcycle crash itself is what caused the tire to unseat\nfrom the rim. The Timms rightly recognized that answering\nthis causation question required expert testimony. Toward\nthat end, they offered the opinions of Woehrle and Lee, which\nthe district court ultimately excluded.\n Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert govern the ad-\nmissibility of expert testimony. Under this framework, a trial\njudge, as a gatekeeping matter, is responsible for ensuring\nthat proposed expert testimony “is not only relevant, but reli-\nable.” Daubert, 509 U.S. at 589. In assessing reliability, “the\nrole of the court is to determine whether the expert is qualified\nin the relevant field and to examine the methodology the ex-\npert has used in reaching his conclusions.” Smith v. Ford Motor\nCo., 215 F.3d 713, 718 (7th Cir. 2000).\n Although reliability must be assessed case by case, Daubert\nidentified a non-exhaustive list of factors to aid the analysis.\nRelevant considerations include not only whether the expert’s\ntheory “can be (and has been) tested,” but also whether it has\nbeen “subjected to peer review and publication.” 509 U.S. at\n593. Other potential considerations include “the known or po-\ntential rate of error” and whether the theory or technique has\nachieved “general acceptance” in the relevant expert commu-\nnity. Id. at 594–95. No one factor is dispositive, however, and\n“the Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized [that] the\nRule 702 test is a flexible one.” Smith, 215 F.3d at 719. The\n\f10 No. 18-2641\n\nCourt has likewise underscored that the correct inquiry fo-\ncuses not on “the ultimate correctness of the expert’s conclu-\nsions,” but rather on “the soundness and care with which the\nexpert arrived at her opinion.” Schultz v. Akzo Nobel Paints,\nLLC, 721 F.3d 426, 431 (7th Cir. 2013) (citing Daubert, 509 U.S.\nat 595).\n Faced as we are here with a challenge to a district court’s\nexclusion of expert testimony, our review proceeds in two\nsteps. We “review de novo whether a district judge has fol-\nlowed Rule 702 and Daubert” and, if the court correctly “ap-\nplied the Rule 702/Daubert framework, we [then] review [its]\ndecision to admit or exclude expert testimony for abuse of dis-\ncretion.” Haley v. Kolbe & Kolbe Millwork Co., 863 F.3d 600, 611\n(7th Cir. 2017).\n We find no errors here. In response to the defendants’ mo-\ntions to exclude Woehrle’s and Lee’s testimony, the district\ncourt held a Daubert hearing. The court used the hearing to\nprobe Woehrle about the basis for his opinions, the method-\nology he employed to formulate his theories, and the poten-\ntial rate of error of his approach—all proper considerations\nunder Rule 702 and Daubert. In its written decision, the court\nfurther conveyed its understanding of the Rule and Daubert\nfactors by accurately articulating them and proceeding to ap-\nply them to Woehrle’s and Lee’s testimony and opinions. See\nClark v. River Metals Recycling, 929 F.3d 434, 438 (7th Cir. 2019).\nThere is no question the district court applied the correct evi-\ndentiary framework.\n Turning to the court’s rulings, we see no abuse of discre-\ntion with the exclusion of Woehrle’s and Lee’s testimony. In\nhis report and testimony, Woehrle posited that the Timms’\nmotorcycle accident was the result of the tire unseating from\n\fNo. 18-2641 11\n\nits rim. He further opined that the unseating occurred because\nthere was excess “flash” in the bead area (the edge of the tire\nthat sits on the wheel rim) and insufficient rubber covering\nthe chafer strip (a reinforcement of the bead area), which\nweakened the fit between the tire and the rim. Woehrle testi-\nfied that he arrived at this conclusion by conducting a physi-\ncal examination of the tire and wheel. When pressed about his\nmethodology, however, Woehrle conceded that he could\npoint to no empirical data or controlled experiments to sup-\nport his opinions. He further acknowledged that he had not\ndone any testing to validate his opinion, was unaware of any\nrelevant tests conducted by others, and knew of no way others\ncould objectively replicate his approach.\n On this evidence, the district court was well within its dis-\ncretion to exclude Woerhle’s opinions about the cause of the\ntire unseating. To satisfy the requirements of Rule 702 and\nDaubert, Woerhle needed to show that his conclusions were\nthe fruit of a rigorous, objectively-verifiable approach—some-\nthing more than mere speculation. While Woerhle may well\nhave had the experience and knowledge to make this show-\ning, he failed to do so. All of this leads to underscore anew\nthat even a “supremely qualified expert cannot waltz into the\ncourtroom and render opinions unless those opinions are\nbased upon some recognized scientific method.” Smith, 215\nF.3d at 718 (quoting Clark v. Takata Corp., 192 F.3d 750, 759 n.5\n(7th Cir. 1999)). The record amply supports the district court’s\nconclusion that the Timms failed to establish that Woehrle’s\nopinions were sufficiently reliable.\n Nor do we see any abuse of discretion in the district\ncourt’s exclusion of Dr. Lee’s opinions regarding the cause of\nthe crash. In his report, Dr. Lee opined that Mr. Timm lost\n\f12 No. 18-2641\n\ncontrol of the motorcycle because the rear tire started to\n“hop.” This hopping, Lee maintained, was the result of the\ntire unseating from the rim. In addition to questioning Lee’s\nqualifications with respect to the functioning of tires and how\nthey can unseat from a rim, the district court concluded that\nLee’s methodology did not comport with Daubert because Lee\nfailed to point to any test replicating the conditions under\nwhich the rubber beading would have come unseated or any\ntesting to support his theory that bead unseating would cause\na motorcycle to hop. Lee likewise failed to identify any scien-\ntific literature to support his opinion. In the absence of any-\nthing to support his conclusions, the district court acted\nwithin its discretion in excluding Dr. Lee’s opinions about the\ncause of the unseating.\n Finally, we consider the court’s exclusion of Woehrle’s\nand Lee’s testimony regarding the tire pressure monitoring\nsystem. The Timms alleged that the motorcycle was defec-\ntively designed because it should have been equipped with\nsuch a monitoring system. They sought to support this claim\nwith testimony from both Woehrle and Lee, who opined that\nthe accident would not have happened if the motorcycle came\nequipped with such a system.\n The district court concluded that neither expert possessed\nthe requisite qualifications to offer such testimony. Here, too,\nwe find no abuse of discretion. Though Woehrle has expertise\nwith the design and operation of tires, the record supports the\ndistrict court’s conclusion that this knowledge and experience\ndoes not extend to motorcycles. Indeed, Woehrle himself\nacknowledged that he is not an expert in the design of tire\npressure monitoring systems for motorcycles and he has\nnever conducted any research on this topic. While the court\n\fNo. 18-2641 13\n\nrecognized that Dr. Lee did have significant experience with\nmotorcycles, Lee testified during his deposition that he lacked\nfamiliarity with tire pressure monitoring systems. Given this\nadmission, the district court’s assessment of Lee’s qualifica-\ntions—and its decision to exclude his testimony—reflected no\nabuse of discretion.\n Because the Timms’ manufacturing and design defect\nclaims against Harley-Davidson and Goodyear rested on\nWoehrle’s and Lee’s testimony, the district court’s evidentiary\nrulings defeated those claims. The same evidentiary shortfalls\ndefeated the Timms’ claim based on a failure to warn.\n * * *\n What happened here was tragic. Donald and Mary Timm\nsuffered extremely serious injuries in an extremely serious\nmotorcycle accident. We have no doubt that these injuries\nhave impacted their lives in substantial and lasting ways.\nWhat we cannot say, though, is that the district court commit-\nted any error in rejecting their legal claims. So we are left to\nAFFIRM.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Donald N. TIMM and Mary K. Timm, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GOODYEAR DUNLOP TIRES NORTH AMERICA, LTD., an Ohio-Based Corporation, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-08-06\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-2641\\nDONALD N. TIMM and MARY K. TIMM,\\n Plaintiffs-Appellants,\\n v.\\n\\nGOODYEAR DUNLOP TIRES NORTH AMERICA, LTD.,\\nan Ohio-based Corporation, et al.,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division.\\n No. 2:14-cv-232 — Philip P. Simon, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED APRIL 5, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 6, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before FLAUM, KANNE, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.\\n SCUDDER, Circuit Judge. Donald and Mary Timm sustained\\nserious injuries in a horrific motorcycle accident. Believing de-\\nfects with the motorcycle and its rear tire caused the acci-\\ndent—and that their injuries were especially severe because\\nof a defect with their helmets—the Timms brought a products\\nliability action under Indiana law against numerous defend-\\nants involved in the sale and manufacture of the motorcycle,\\n\\f2 No. 18-2641\\n\\nits rear tire, and the helmets they wore at the time of the acci-\\ndent. Concluding that the Timms failed to present admissible\\nexpert testimony to support their claims, the district court en-\\ntered summary judgment for the defendants. We affirm.\\n I\\n On July 10, 2013, Donald and Mary Timm set off on a\\ncross-country trip on their Harley-Davidson Ultra Classic.\\nThe Timms intended to drive from their home in Dyer, Indi-\\nana to Salt Lake City, Utah. While crossing Nebraska, the cou-\\nple suffered a catastrophic accident when the motorcycle’s\\nrear tire sustained a puncture and rapidly deflated, leading\\nDonald to lose control of the motorcycle and crash into a con-\\ncrete median barrier. Mary flew off the motorcycle while Don-\\nald remained attached to the bike as it slid along the highway.\\nThough both riders were wearing helmets, each sustained se-\\nrious head injuries. In addition to suffering a traumatic brain\\ninjury, Donald sustained facial fractures and a cervical spine\\ninjury.\\n A few months later, the Timms received notice that the\\nhelmets they were wearing at the time of the accident—Ultra\\nLow Profile Outlaw Motorcycle Half Helmets—were recalled.\\nThe Timms purchased the helmets two years earlier. Mary\\npurchased her helmet through a website called Leath-\\nerUp.com (owned by Nanal, Inc.). Donald purchased his hel-\\nmet through a different internet retailer, which is not a party\\nto this suit. A company named Tegol imported and distrib-\\nuted both helmets. In its recall notice, Tegol explained that the\\nOutlaw helmets failed to conform to certain Department of\\nTransportation standards and warned that riders “may not be\\nadequately protected in the event of a crash.”\\n\\fNo. 18-2641 3\\n\\n The Timms then brought a products liability action\\nagainst Tegol, Nanal, and fourteen other corporate and indi-\\nvidual defendants involved in the manufacture, distribution,\\nand sale of Outlaw helmets (which we will collectively call the\\nhelmet defendants). Advancing claims under the Indiana\\nProducts Liability Act, the Timms alleged that their injuries\\nwould have been less severe had their helmets complied with\\nfederal safety standards and that the helmet defendants were\\nnegligent in their recall efforts. The Timms also asserted\\nclaims against Harley-Davidson, the motorcycle manufac-\\nturer, and Goodyear Dunlop (now known as Sumitomo Rub-\\nber USA), the tire manufacturer, contending that defects in the\\nmotorcycle and rear tire caused the accident.\\n Beginning with their helmets, the Timms pressed several\\nclaims, including design defect and manufacturing defect. To\\nshow that the helmets enhanced their injuries, the Timms em-\\nphasized the recall as well as the sheer severity of the injuries\\nthey sustained in the accident. But they did not present any\\nexpert testimony to show that, because of a defect with their\\nhelmets, their injuries were worse than they otherwise would\\nhave experienced in such a severe motorcycle crash. This\\nomission, the district court concluded, was fatal to their\\nclaims because “a lay juror would not be able to distinguish\\nbetween the injuries caused by the motorcycle accident and\\nthe enhanced injuries caused by the alleged defect in the hel-\\nmets without engaging in speculation.”\\n This conclusion, the district court reasoned, found support\\nin the fact that the helmet defendants offered their own med-\\nical expert, who opined that the Timms’ injuries were the type\\nhe would expect following such a serious motorcycle acci-\\ndent, even if they had been wearing helmets that complied\\n\\f4 No. 18-2641\\n\\nwith all safety standards. The court accordingly entered sum-\\nmary judgment in favor of the helmet defendants on the\\nTimms’ manufacturing and design defect claims. The court\\nalso entered judgment for the defendants on the Timms’\\nclaims alleging negligent recall and failure to comply with\\nfederal safety standards, concluding that the Indiana Prod-\\nucts Liability Act permits neither claim.\\n Turning to the allegations against Harley-Davidson and\\nGoodyear, the Timms asserted that the motorcycle’s rear tire\\n(a Dunlop D402 tire) was defective and unreasonably danger-\\nous because, following a puncture, it allowed for both exces-\\nsive air leakage and the tire to unseat—or come free—from its\\nrim. These defects, they maintained, caused Mr. Timm to lose\\ncontrol of the motorcycle and crash. The Timms further al-\\nleged that the motorcycle itself was defectively designed be-\\ncause it lacked a tire pressure monitoring system, which\\nwould have alerted Donald to the sudden loss of air in the tire\\nbefore he lost control. To support these claims, the Timms\\nproposed two experts: William Woehrle, a tire specialist, and\\nDr. Daniel Lee, an accident reconstructionist. In his report,\\nWoehrle opined on how and when the tire became unseated\\nfrom the rim and the need for a tire pressure monitoring sys-\\ntem. Dr. Lee likewise sought to testify about the ultimate\\ncause of the accident and to share his opinion that every mo-\\ntorcycle should be equipped with a tire pressure monitoring\\nsystem.\\n Harley-Davidson and Goodyear filed motions to exclude\\nWoehrle’s and Lee’s opinions, arguing they lacked the relia-\\nbility required by Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v.\\nMerrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Follow-\\ning a hearing, the district court agreed. The court concluded\\n\\fNo. 18-2641 5\\n\\nthat Woehrle’s opinion that manufacturing defects caused the\\ntire to unseat from the rim upon being punctured “appear[ed]\\nto be based on nothing more than his subjective belief and un-\\nsupported speculation,” and thus “fail[ed] to adhere to any of\\nthe Daubert guideposts.” The court also excluded Woehrle’s\\nopinion on the tire pressure monitoring system, reasoning\\nthat while Woehrle had expertise with respect to tires, he\\nlacked qualifications related to motorcycles more generally.\\nThe district court judge also determined that Woehrle’s opin-\\nions failed to comport with Rule 702 “because they [were] not\\nbased on scientifically valid methodologies.”\\n The court similarly excluded Dr. Lee’s testimony, finding\\nthat he lacked tire-related qualifications, and, in any event, his\\nmethodology with respect to both the tire defects and the tire\\npressure monitoring system lacked the reliability required by\\nDaubert.\\n Without expert testimony to support any of their claims,\\nthe court granted summary judgment for all defendants on all\\nof the Timms’ claims.\\n II\\n The Timms challenge the district court’s conclusions re-\\ngarding the need for expert testimony on their helmet claims\\nand the adequacy of their proposed expert testimony for their\\nmotorcycle and tire claims.\\n A\\n We begin with the helmet claims. While the Timms ini-\\ntially sued more than a dozen defendants, by summary judg-\\nment, only one corporate defendant remained—Nanal, Inc.\\nRecall that Nanal owns and operates the website where Mary\\nTimm purchased her helmet. Because Donald Timm\\n\\f6 No. 18-2641\\n\\npurchased his helmet on a different website, and thus not\\nfrom a supplier named as a defendant, we consider the helmet\\nclaims only with respect to Mary.\\n The parties agree that the Indiana Products Liability Act\\ngoverns the Timms’ claims. See Ind. Code § 34-20-1-1. Under\\nthe Act, “a plaintiff must prove that a product was placed into\\nthe stream of commerce in a defective condition unreasonably\\ndangerous to the user and that plaintiff's injuries were caused\\nby this dangerous product.” Campbell Hausfeld/Scott Fetzer Co.\\nv. Johnson, 109 N.E.3d 953, 956 (Ind. 2018).\\n The Timms contend that Mary’s helmet was unreasonably\\ndangerous within the meaning of the Act due to design and\\nmanufacturing defects and a related failure to warn. To sur-\\nvive summary judgment under each of these theories, Indiana\\nlaw required the Timms to show that the alleged defects prox-\\nimately caused Mary’s injuries. See Piltch v. Ford Motor Co.,\\n778 F.3d 628, 632 (7th Cir. 2015) (citing Ford Motor Co. v. Rush-\\nford, 868 N.E.2d 806, 810 (Ind. 2007)). The Timms sought to do\\nso by invoking the doctrine of “crashworthiness,” an ap-\\nproach to causation that “expands the proximate cause re-\\nquirement to include enhanced injuries” caused by a defective\\nproduct. Green v. Ford Motor Co., 942 N.E.2d 791, 793–94 (Ind.\\n2011) (quoting Miller v. Todd, 551 N.E.2d 1139, 1142 (Ind.\\n1990)). Put another way, the doctrine applies to situations\\nwhere, as here, the allegedly defective product did not cause\\nthe initial accident and any and all resulting injuries, but ra-\\nther increased or enhanced the severity of a plaintiff’s injuries.\\nSee id.\\n The Timms contend that Mary’s injuries from the crash\\nwere more severe than they would have been had her helmet\\nmet all federal safety regulations. To show that defects in the\\n\\fNo. 18-2641 7\\n\\nhelmet enhanced her injuries, the Timms presented the dis-\\ntrict court with her medical records. While this evidence cer-\\ntainly confirmed that Mary suffered very serious head injuries\\nin the accident, we agree with the district court that the rec-\\nords alone failed to distinguish those injuries that would have\\nresulted from any similar crash from any specific enhanced\\ninjuries Mary sustained as a result of the allegedly defective\\nhelmet. While plaintiffs are not always required to provide\\nexpert testimony to establish proximate causation, see U–Haul\\nInt’l., Inc. v. Nulls Machine & Mfg. Shop, 736 N.E.2d 271, 285 n.3\\n(Ind. Ct. App. 2000), the district court correctly concluded that\\nIndiana law required expert testimony here because distin-\\nguishing expected from enhanced injuries was an inquiry be-\\nyond the understanding of lay jurors, see Piltch, 778 F.3d at\\n632.\\n The district court’s reasoning finds sound support in our\\ncaselaw. We have previously held that when a plaintiff seeks\\nunder Indiana law to distinguish between ordinary and en-\\nhanced injuries, expert testimony is necessary to prevent the\\njury from engaging in guesswork. Id. at 634. In Piltch v. Ford\\nMotor Co., for example, the plaintiffs brought manufacturing\\nand design defect claims under the Indiana Products Liability\\nAct related to the air bags’ failure to deploy in a car accident.\\nSee id. Yet because the plaintiffs failed to present expert testi-\\nmony as to their injuries, we affirmed summary judgment in\\nfavor of the car manufacturer, explaining that without any ex-\\npert testimony, a “lay juror could not distinguish between the\\ninjuries caused by the collision and the enhanced injuries\\ncaused by the air bags' failure to deploy without engaging in\\npure speculation.” Id.\\n\\f8 No. 18-2641\\n\\n All agree that Mary Timm suffered severe injuries. But\\nwithout the assistance of an expert, a juror would be unable\\nto distinguish between those injuries caused by the crash—in\\nother words, the injuries anyone in this type of accident\\nwould have suffered—and any enhanced or more severe in-\\njuries caused by the defective helmet. Summary judgment\\nwas therefore proper on the Timms’ design defect and manu-\\nfacturing defect claims.\\n For the sake of completeness, we address the failure-to-\\nwarn claim the Timms advanced based on allegations that the\\ndefendants delayed issuing the helmet recall notice. The dis-\\ntrict court considered this a claim of negligent recall and en-\\ntered summary judgment for the helmet defendants because\\nit found no support for such claims under Indiana law. Be-\\ncause the Timms do not address this argument on appeal, we\\nconsider it waived. See Mahaffey v. Ramos, 588 F.3d 1142, 1146\\n(7th Cir. 2009) (declining to consider claims not adequately\\nbriefed).\\n B\\n The Timms next argue that summary judgment against\\nHarley-Davidson and Goodyear was improper because the\\ndistrict court erred in excluding the testimony of their experts,\\nWilliam Woehrle and Dr. Daniel Lee.\\n At the time of the accident, the Timms were traveling cross\\ncountry on their 2006 Harley-Davidson Ultra Classic Motor-\\ncycle. It is undisputed that the rear tire—manufactured by\\nGoodyear Dunlop and branded with the name Harley-Da-\\nvidson—was punctured by a road hazard and began to de-\\nflate, eventually unseating from its rim. The issue at the heart\\nof the Timms’ claims requires pinpointing exactly when the\\n\\fNo. 18-2641 9\\n\\nrubber unseated from the rim. For their part, the Timms con-\\ntend that the tire’s unseating occurred nearly instantly be-\\ncause of defects and, in turn, that the unseating caused Don-\\nald to lose control of the motorcycle and crash. The defend-\\nants urge a contrary view. They resist that the unseating im-\\nmediately followed the puncture and instead maintain that\\nthe motorcycle crash itself is what caused the tire to unseat\\nfrom the rim. The Timms rightly recognized that answering\\nthis causation question required expert testimony. Toward\\nthat end, they offered the opinions of Woehrle and Lee, which\\nthe district court ultimately excluded.\\n Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert govern the ad-\\nmissibility of expert testimony. Under this framework, a trial\\njudge, as a gatekeeping matter, is responsible for ensuring\\nthat proposed expert testimony “is not only relevant, but reli-\\nable.” Daubert, 509 U.S. at 589. In assessing reliability, “the\\nrole of the court is to determine whether the expert is qualified\\nin the relevant field and to examine the methodology the ex-\\npert has used in reaching his conclusions.” Smith v. Ford Motor\\nCo., 215 F.3d 713, 718 (7th Cir. 2000).\\n Although reliability must be assessed case by case, Daubert\\nidentified a non-exhaustive list of factors to aid the analysis.\\nRelevant considerations include not only whether the expert’s\\ntheory “can be (and has been) tested,” but also whether it has\\nbeen “subjected to peer review and publication.” 509 U.S. at\\n593. Other potential considerations include “the known or po-\\ntential rate of error” and whether the theory or technique has\\nachieved “general acceptance” in the relevant expert commu-\\nnity. Id. at 594–95. No one factor is dispositive, however, and\\n“the Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized [that] the\\nRule 702 test is a flexible one.” Smith, 215 F.3d at 719. The\\n\\f10 No. 18-2641\\n\\nCourt has likewise underscored that the correct inquiry fo-\\ncuses not on “the ultimate correctness of the expert’s conclu-\\nsions,” but rather on “the soundness and care with which the\\nexpert arrived at her opinion.” Schultz v. Akzo Nobel Paints,\\nLLC, 721 F.3d 426, 431 (7th Cir. 2013) (citing Daubert, 509 U.S.\\nat 595).\\n Faced as we are here with a challenge to a district court’s\\nexclusion of expert testimony, our review proceeds in two\\nsteps. We “review de novo whether a district judge has fol-\\nlowed Rule 702 and Daubert” and, if the court correctly “ap-\\nplied the Rule 702/Daubert framework, we [then] review [its]\\ndecision to admit or exclude expert testimony for abuse of dis-\\ncretion.” Haley v. Kolbe & Kolbe Millwork Co., 863 F.3d 600, 611\\n(7th Cir. 2017).\\n We find no errors here. In response to the defendants’ mo-\\ntions to exclude Woehrle’s and Lee’s testimony, the district\\ncourt held a Daubert hearing. The court used the hearing to\\nprobe Woehrle about the basis for his opinions, the method-\\nology he employed to formulate his theories, and the poten-\\ntial rate of error of his approach—all proper considerations\\nunder Rule 702 and Daubert. In its written decision, the court\\nfurther conveyed its understanding of the Rule and Daubert\\nfactors by accurately articulating them and proceeding to ap-\\nply them to Woehrle’s and Lee’s testimony and opinions. See\\nClark v. River Metals Recycling, 929 F.3d 434, 438 (7th Cir. 2019).\\nThere is no question the district court applied the correct evi-\\ndentiary framework.\\n Turning to the court’s rulings, we see no abuse of discre-\\ntion with the exclusion of Woehrle’s and Lee’s testimony. In\\nhis report and testimony, Woehrle posited that the Timms’\\nmotorcycle accident was the result of the tire unseating from\\n\\fNo. 18-2641 11\\n\\nits rim. He further opined that the unseating occurred because\\nthere was excess “flash” in the bead area (the edge of the tire\\nthat sits on the wheel rim) and insufficient rubber covering\\nthe chafer strip (a reinforcement of the bead area), which\\nweakened the fit between the tire and the rim. Woehrle testi-\\nfied that he arrived at this conclusion by conducting a physi-\\ncal examination of the tire and wheel. When pressed about his\\nmethodology, however, Woehrle conceded that he could\\npoint to no empirical data or controlled experiments to sup-\\nport his opinions. He further acknowledged that he had not\\ndone any testing to validate his opinion, was unaware of any\\nrelevant tests conducted by others, and knew of no way others\\ncould objectively replicate his approach.\\n On this evidence, the district court was well within its dis-\\ncretion to exclude Woerhle’s opinions about the cause of the\\ntire unseating. To satisfy the requirements of Rule 702 and\\nDaubert, Woerhle needed to show that his conclusions were\\nthe fruit of a rigorous, objectively-verifiable approach—some-\\nthing more than mere speculation. While Woerhle may well\\nhave had the experience and knowledge to make this show-\\ning, he failed to do so. All of this leads to underscore anew\\nthat even a “supremely qualified expert cannot waltz into the\\ncourtroom and render opinions unless those opinions are\\nbased upon some recognized scientific method.” Smith, 215\\nF.3d at 718 (quoting Clark v. Takata Corp., 192 F.3d 750, 759 n.5\\n(7th Cir. 1999)). The record amply supports the district court’s\\nconclusion that the Timms failed to establish that Woehrle’s\\nopinions were sufficiently reliable.\\n Nor do we see any abuse of discretion in the district\\ncourt’s exclusion of Dr. Lee’s opinions regarding the cause of\\nthe crash. In his report, Dr. Lee opined that Mr. Timm lost\\n\\f12 No. 18-2641\\n\\ncontrol of the motorcycle because the rear tire started to\\n“hop.” This hopping, Lee maintained, was the result of the\\ntire unseating from the rim. In addition to questioning Lee’s\\nqualifications with respect to the functioning of tires and how\\nthey can unseat from a rim, the district court concluded that\\nLee’s methodology did not comport with Daubert because Lee\\nfailed to point to any test replicating the conditions under\\nwhich the rubber beading would have come unseated or any\\ntesting to support his theory that bead unseating would cause\\na motorcycle to hop. Lee likewise failed to identify any scien-\\ntific literature to support his opinion. In the absence of any-\\nthing to support his conclusions, the district court acted\\nwithin its discretion in excluding Dr. Lee’s opinions about the\\ncause of the unseating.\\n Finally, we consider the court’s exclusion of Woehrle’s\\nand Lee’s testimony regarding the tire pressure monitoring\\nsystem. The Timms alleged that the motorcycle was defec-\\ntively designed because it should have been equipped with\\nsuch a monitoring system. They sought to support this claim\\nwith testimony from both Woehrle and Lee, who opined that\\nthe accident would not have happened if the motorcycle came\\nequipped with such a system.\\n The district court concluded that neither expert possessed\\nthe requisite qualifications to offer such testimony. Here, too,\\nwe find no abuse of discretion. Though Woehrle has expertise\\nwith the design and operation of tires, the record supports the\\ndistrict court’s conclusion that this knowledge and experience\\ndoes not extend to motorcycles. Indeed, Woehrle himself\\nacknowledged that he is not an expert in the design of tire\\npressure monitoring systems for motorcycles and he has\\nnever conducted any research on this topic. While the court\\n\\fNo. 18-2641 13\\n\\nrecognized that Dr. Lee did have significant experience with\\nmotorcycles, Lee testified during his deposition that he lacked\\nfamiliarity with tire pressure monitoring systems. Given this\\nadmission, the district court’s assessment of Lee’s qualifica-\\ntions—and its decision to exclude his testimony—reflected no\\nabuse of discretion.\\n Because the Timms’ manufacturing and design defect\\nclaims against Harley-Davidson and Goodyear rested on\\nWoehrle’s and Lee’s testimony, the district court’s evidentiary\\nrulings defeated those claims. The same evidentiary shortfalls\\ndefeated the Timms’ claim based on a failure to warn.\\n * * *\\n What happened here was tragic. Donald and Mary Timm\\nsuffered extremely serious injuries in an extremely serious\\nmotorcycle accident. We have no doubt that these injuries\\nhave impacted their lives in substantial and lasting ways.\\nWhat we cannot say, though, is that the district court commit-\\nted any error in rejecting their legal claims. So we are left to\\nAFFIRM.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3794,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4645917,"string":"4,645,917"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"Michael ALONSO, Individually and Derivatively on Behalf of Nutmeg/Mercury Fund, LLP (Hereinafter Within This Caption Mercury Fund, LLP), Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, and Randall S. Goulding, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Leslie J. WEISS and Barnes & Thornburg, Defendants-Appellees."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Randall Goulding v. Leslie Weiss"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-08-06"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-1740; 18-1791"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Sykes, Scudder, Eve\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"No. 1:12-cv-7373 - Joan Humphrey Lefkow, Judge\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\n\\n\\nNos. 18-1740 & 18-1791\\nMICHAEL ALONSO, individually and derivatively on behalf of\\nNUTMEG/MERCURY FUND, LLP (hereinafter within this caption\\nMERCURY FUND, LLP), et al.,\\n Plaintiffs-Appellants,\\n and\\n\\nRANDALL S. GOULDING,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n\\n v.\\n\\nLESLIE J. WEISS and BARNES & THORNBURG,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeals from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 1:12-cv-7373 — Joan Humphrey Lefkow, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED APRIL 11, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 6, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before SYKES, SCUDDER, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.\\n\\f2 Nos. 18-1740 & 18-1791\\n\\n SCUDDER, Circuit Judge. This appeal centers on the perfor-\\nmance of the court-appointed receiver of financial advisory\\nfirm Nutmeg Group, LLC. The district court appointed the re-\\nceiver after the Securities and Exchange Commission initiated\\nan enforcement action against Nutmeg and its managing\\nmember, Randall Goulding. Against the Commission’s alle-\\ngations of ongoing fraud and misappropriation of client as-\\nsets, the district court presiding over the SEC matter entered\\na temporary restraining order prohibiting Goulding from op-\\nerating Nutmeg and appointed a receiver to oversee all as-\\npects of the firm’s business.\\n This civil suit followed. Goulding and a group of limited\\npartners in one or more of the Nutmeg funds alleged that the\\nreceiver breached her fiduciary duties and, in doing so, re-\\nduced the value of the funds’ assets. After dismissing certain\\ncounts, the district court entered summary judgment in the\\nreceiver’s favor on all remaining claims. Because we agree\\nthat no reasonable jury could find that the receiver engaged\\nin a willful, deliberate, or even grossly negligent breach of a\\nfiduciary duty, we affirm.\\n I\\n A\\n Nutmeg Group, LLC, formerly managed by Randall\\nGoulding, served as an investment advisor and sole general\\npartner of more than a dozen investment funds, which we\\nwill refer to collectively as the Funds. Each of the constituent\\nfunds is a limited partnership under Illinois or Minnesota\\nlaw. With Goulding at the helm, Nutmeg executed transac-\\ntions on behalf of the Funds and oversaw their investment\\nstrategies. Goulding’s management of the Funds ended in\\n\\fNos. 18-1740 & 18-1791 3\\n\\n2009, when the SEC brought an enforcement action against\\nhim, Nutmeg, and others in the Northern District of Illinois,\\nalleging violations of the Investment Advisors Act of 1940.\\nThe thrust of the Commission’s complaint was that Nutmeg\\nmisappropriated client assets and failed to maintain proper\\nrecords. See SEC v. Nutmeg Grp., LLC, No. 09 C 1775, 2011 WL\\n5042094 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 19, 2011).\\n The district court handling the SEC action found that the\\nCommission made the showing necessary to warrant the is-\\nsuance of a restraining order prohibiting Goulding from man-\\naging the Funds. The court also granted the SEC’s unopposed\\nmotion to appoint attorney Leslie Weiss as receiver for Nut-\\nmeg. The appointment order granted Weiss the authority to\\n“oversee all aspects of Nutmeg’s operations and business,”\\nincluding “serving as general partner and investment advi-\\nsor” to the Funds. It also provided that, as receiver, Weiss was\\n“solely the agent of [the] [c]ourt,” and should continue Nut-\\nmeg’s business “in such manner, to such extent, and for such\\nduration as [she] may in the exercise of her business judgment\\nand in good faith deem to be necessary or appropriate.” The\\norder directed Weiss to file regular status reports with the dis-\\ntrict court detailing her acts as receiver.\\n The appointment order separately addressed Weiss’s lia-\\nbility, broadly providing that Weiss and any professionals she\\nretained would not be held liable to anyone “for their own\\ngood faith compliance with any order, rule, law, judgment, or\\ndecree.” The order added that neither Weiss nor any retained\\npersonnel would be held liable “with respect to the perfor-\\nmance of their duties and responsibilities as Receiver and Re-\\ntained Personnel . . . except upon a finding by [the district]\\n[c]ourt that they acted or failed to act as a result of\\n\\f4 Nos. 18-1740 & 18-1791\\n\\nmalfeasance, bad faith, gross negligence or in reckless disre-\\ngard of their duties.”\\n B\\n Following her appointment, Weiss submitted the required\\nstatus reports to the district court. In her first report, she\\nbroadly shared the results of her initial due diligence. She in-\\nformed the court of her review of the Funds’ assets, which in-\\ncluded convertible notes (many of which were in default);\\nlawsuits or judgments against borrowers who had defaulted\\non their notes or refused to convert notes to stocks; and\\n“shells” of failed borrower companies that Nutmeg or the\\nFunds had recovered when the companies defaulted on their\\ndebt. Weiss also reported on her efforts to assess the collecta-\\nbility of any outstanding judgments, while also conveying her\\nconcern that some of the notes’ issuers were not financially\\nstable. In time Weiss submitted additional reports informing\\nthe district court of particular developments and challenges\\nshe was encountering as well as decisions she was making as\\nreceiver.\\n To further fulfill her duties, Weiss sought assistance from\\ninvestment advisors and attorneys. For example, in addition\\nto retaining Barnes & Thornburg, the law firm where she is a\\npartner, Weiss hired McClendon, Morrison & Partners, LLC\\nas an investment advisor. She also consulted with a collection\\nfirm regarding the collectability of certain judgments against\\nborrowers who had defaulted on their notes.\\n Unsatisfied with Weiss’s performance as receiver, Gould-\\ning and a group of limited partners from certain funds man-\\naged by Nutmeg filed an individual and derivative action on\\nbehalf of the Funds. The complaint named as defendants\\n\\fNos. 18-1740 & 18-1791 5\\n\\nWeiss, Barnes & Thornburg, Nutmeg, and the Funds, and al-\\nleged state-law claims for breach of fiduciary duty and legal\\nmalpractice. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that Weiss\\nbreached her fiduciary duties as receiver, including under Il-\\nlinois’s and Minnesota’s partnership statutes, by failing to\\npursue certain opportunities to the detriment of one or more\\nof the Funds and, separately, by not converting certain debt\\nowed to Nutmeg or a particular fund into stock to be sold on\\nthe open market. The plaintiffs also brought a federal claim\\npursuant to the Investment Advisors Act of 1940 and SEC\\nRule 206(4)-2.\\n For their part, Weiss and Barnes & Thornburg filed a mo-\\ntion to dismiss, which the district court granted in part. The\\ncourt dismissed the plaintiffs’ federal securities law claim as\\nwell as several other counts in an amended complaint, includ-\\ning all claims against Nutmeg, all legal malpractice claims\\nagainst Weiss and Barnes & Thornburg, and two breach of fi-\\nduciary duty claims against Weiss. These dismissals are not at\\nissue on appeal.\\n Weiss and Barnes & Thornburg then successfully moved\\nfor summary judgment on the remaining seventeen counts. In\\na detailed and thorough opinion, the district court assessed\\neach of the plaintiffs’ allegations, concluding that even when\\nviewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, no reason-\\nable jury could find that either Weiss or Barnes & Thornburg\\nwillfully and deliberately violated any fiduciary duties. On\\nappeal the plaintiffs challenge the district court’s ruling on se-\\nlect claims advanced against Weiss.\\n\\f6 Nos. 18-1740 & 18-1791\\n\\n II\\n A\\n We begin with a brief word on our appellate jurisdiction.\\nWe do so because the plaintiffs’ amended complaint named\\nnot only Weiss and Barnes & Thornburg as defendants, but\\nalso Nutmeg and the Funds. The district court’s final judg-\\nment did not address the Funds, however.\\n We nonetheless agree with the parties that the district\\ncourt’s judgment constituted a final and appealable judgment\\nunder 28 U.S.C. § 1291. First, although the amended com-\\nplaint named 13 separate funds as defendants, the plaintiffs\\ndid not assert any claims against these entities or seek any re-\\nlief from them. More to it, the summary judgment order, by\\nits terms, expressly resolved all claims in the district court. See\\nBaltimore Orioles, Inc. v. Major League Baseball Players Ass'n, 805\\nF.2d 663, 666 (7th Cir. 1986) (explaining that “a decision is fi-\\nnal for the purpose of § 1291 if it ends the litigation on the\\nmerits and leaves nothing for the district court to do but exe-\\ncute the judgment”). In these circumstances, our appellate ju-\\nrisdiction is secure.\\n And this is so despite ongoing proceedings in the district\\ncourt in the underlying SEC enforcement action. The docket\\nshows that the parties consented to a bench trial before a mag-\\nistrate judge in January 2018. They are awaiting a decision.\\nWe have no reason to believe any outcome of the bench trial\\nwill affect this appeal, however.\\n\\fNos. 18-1740 & 18-1791 7\\n\\n B\\n We turn next to the standard of liability governing the\\nplaintiffs’ state-law claims for breach of fiduciary duty. The\\nplaintiffs assert that Minnesota and Illinois law apply because\\neach of the funds is either a Minnesota or Illinois limited part-\\nnership. With both states having adopted the Uniform Lim-\\nited Partnership Act—and the plaintiffs not identifying any\\nconflict in the states’ respective interpretations of the Act—\\nour analysis proceeds by applying Illinois law. We would\\nreach the same conclusions under Minnesota law.\\n To recover for a breach of fiduciary duty, Illinois law re-\\nquired the plaintiffs to establish the existence of a fiduciary\\nduty, a breach of that duty, and damages proximately caused\\nby the breach. See Gross v. Town of Cicero, Ill., 619 F.3d 697, 709\\n(7th Cir. 2010). On this much the parties agree. From there,\\nhowever, they dispute the substantive standard to which\\nWeiss should be held when assessing whether she breached\\nher fiduciary duties as receiver.\\n The district court relied on our 1985 decision in In re Chi-\\ncago Pacific Corp. and determined that, to hold a court-ap-\\npointed receiver personally liable, the plaintiffs must show\\nthat Weiss engaged in a “willful and deliberate” violation of\\nher fiduciary duties. 773 F.2d 909, 915 (7th Cir. 1985) (citing\\nMosser v. Darrow, 341 U.S. 267, 272 (1951) and Sherr v. Winkler,\\n552 F.2d 1367, 1375 (10th Cir. 1977)). In this way, the district\\ncourt effectively saw the Illinois state-law standard of liability\\nas mirroring the federal willful and deliberate standard an-\\nnounced by the Supreme Court in the bankruptcy context in\\nMosser v. Darrow, see 341 U.S. at 272, which we, in turn, have\\napplied in cases involving alleged breaches of duty by bank-\\nruptcy trustees. See, e.g., Grochocinski v. Mayer Brown Rowe &\\n\\f8 Nos. 18-1740 & 18-1791\\n\\nMaw, LLP, 719 F.3d 785, 800 (7th Cir. 2013); In re Chicago Pac.\\nCorp., 773 F.2d at 915.\\n The plaintiffs contend that the federal benchmark sets the\\nliability bar too high. By their measure, the lesser gross negli-\\ngence standard that the Illinois legislature made applicable to\\nthe acts of all general partners reflects the proper rule of deci-\\nsion. See 805 ILCS 215/408(c); see also Minn. Stat.\\n§ 321.0408(c). This is especially so, the plaintiffs urge, because\\nthe district court order appointing Weiss as receiver expressly\\nstated that she could be held liable upon a showing of gross\\nnegligence.\\n The plaintiffs have some, but not all, of the analysis right.\\nThey are right, of course, that they brought claims under Illi-\\nnois (and Minnesota) law. They are equally right, as a matter\\nof subject matter jurisdiction, that the doctrine of ancillary ju-\\nrisdiction permitted them to bring these claims against Weiss,\\na federally-appointed receiver, in the same federal court pre-\\nsiding over the SEC action, here, the Northern District of Illi-\\nnois. See, e.g., Robinson v. Michigan Consolidated Gas Co. Inc.,\\n918 F.2d 579, 586 (6th Cir. 1990) (quoting C. WRIGHT & A.\\nMILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 2985 at 45) (“It\\nis well settled that ‘actions against a receiver arising out of his\\nconduct of the receivership business may be brought in the\\nappointing court even though there may not be any inde-\\npendent grounds for asserting federal jurisdiction.’”).\\n This case presents a slight wrinkle. Ordinarily in the re-\\nceivership context, the exercise of ancillary jurisdiction would\\nentail the same district judge responsible for the SEC matter\\n(here, Judge Coleman) also hearing any claims asserted\\nagainst a court-appointed receiver. Here the record shows\\nthat the plaintiffs sought permission to file claims against the\\n\\fNos. 18-1740 & 18-1791 9\\n\\nreceiver and her appointed counsel in the Northern District of\\nIllinois and Judge Coleman appropriately authorized the re-\\nquest. But a different judge, Judge Lefkow, ultimately han-\\ndled the plaintiffs’ ancillary claims. We can view all of this as\\nreasonably occurring as part of the Northern District’s case\\nmanagement following the death of Judge Hibbler, the dis-\\ntrict judge who had presided over the SEC enforcement action\\nsince its inception. In these circumstances, we agree with the\\nplaintiffs that the district court properly exercised ancillary\\njurisdiction over the claims challenging Weiss’s performance\\nas a court-appointed receiver. For her part, Weiss too agrees\\nthat the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over the\\nplaintiffs’ claims.\\n Turning to the claims themselves, we agree with the plain-\\ntiffs that state law, and not federal bankruptcy law or federal\\ncommon law, supplies the controlling standard of fiduciary\\ncare. See 28 U.S.C. § 959(b) (stating that a court-appointed re-\\nceiver “shall manage and operate the property in his posses-\\nsion as such trustee, receiver or manager according to the re-\\nquirements of the valid laws of the State in which such prop-\\nerty is situated, in the same manner that the owner or posses-\\nsor thereof would be bound to do if in possession thereof”).\\n Where we part ways with the plaintiffs is in their insist-\\nence that Weiss had to abide by the ordinary gross negligence\\nstandard that both governs general partners under Illinois\\n(and Minnesota) law and appears in the receivership appoint-\\nment order. Put another way, the plaintiffs see Weiss as a gen-\\neral partner, albeit court-appointed, who should be held to\\nthe run-of-the-mill general partner standard of liability under\\nIllinois law. If only the analysis was so straightforward.\\n\\f10 Nos. 18-1740 & 18-1791\\n\\n As a threshold matter, it is far from clear that the district\\ncourt, in appointing Weiss as receiver, made her the general\\npartner of the Funds. The appointment order, to be sure, au-\\nthorized Weiss to “oversee all aspects of Nutmeg’s operations,\\nwhich include, but are not limited to, serving as general part-\\nner and investment advisor” to the Funds. While this lan-\\nguage makes plain that Weiss acquired the authority held in\\nthe ordinary course by a fund’s general partner, this is not the\\nsame as making Weiss a general partner for any and all pur-\\nposes, including for personal liability for a breach of a fiduci-\\nary duty such that ordinary state partnership statutes should\\napply.\\n This conclusion is underscored by the fact that the ap-\\npointment of Weiss as receiver was far from an ordinary-\\ncourse event—indeed, it came upon a finding by the district\\ncourt that Nutmeg, as the sole general partner of the Funds,\\nand Goulding, as Nutmeg’s managing partner, had engaged\\nin substantial malfeasance. What is more, the order appoint-\\ning Weiss did not put her only in the former shoes of Nutmeg\\nand Goulding. To the contrary, Weiss was appointed not as a\\nfiduciary of any particular fund but instead “solely [as] the\\nagent of th[e] Court in acting as Receiver,” and charged with\\nthe broad responsibility of “tak[ing] such action necessary\\nand appropriate to prevent the dissipation or concealment of\\nany funds or assets constituting Receivership Property and\\notherwise preserve any such funds and assets.”\\n To identify the proper rule or decision, we need to ask\\nwhat standard of fiduciary care Illinois courts have adopted,\\nnot for ordinary general partners, but in the context of a court-\\nappointed receiver. If Illinois caselaw does not supply the an-\\nswer, the question becomes what standard the Illinois\\n\\fNos. 18-1740 & 18-1791 11\\n\\nSupreme Court would adopt if presented with the issue. See\\nIn re Zimmer, NextGen Knee Implant Products Liab. Litig., 884\\nF.3d 746, 751 (7th Cir. 2018) (collecting authorities and ex-\\nplaining that a federal court’s task in applying state law is to\\ndetermine how the state’s highest court would rule and,\\nwhere a state’s courts have yet to address the question, to ex-\\namine the law in other jurisdictions to discern the probable\\ndirection of the state law at issue).\\n Our research has identified no Illinois case addressing the\\nquestion. But that observation does not lead to a dead end. In\\npredicting what standard of liability the Illinois Supreme\\nCourt would adopt, we have every reason to believe the court\\nwould see a court-appointed receiver as just that—as an indi-\\nvidual serving not as an ordinary fiduciary or general partner,\\nbut instead at a federal court’s direction to fulfill unique re-\\nsponsibilities. Here that would mean treating Weiss as a re-\\nceiver appointed to oversee and to protect the assets of at least\\n13 limited partnerships in the wake of a federal district court\\nfinding substantial misconduct by Nutmeg and its former\\nmanaging partner.\\n Informed by our decision in Chicago Pacific Corp., we be-\\nlieve the Illinois Supreme Court would arrive at the willful\\nand deliberate standard of personal liability for a court-ap-\\npointed receiver. See 773 F.2d at 915. This heightened stand-\\nard of liability roots itself in the Supreme Court’s 1951 deci-\\nsion in Mosser and accounts for the context in which a receiver\\nis operating. The standard recognizes that if a receiver is “bur-\\ndened with having to defend against suits by litigants disap-\\npointed by his actions on the court’s behalf, his work for the\\ncourt will be impeded.” Matter of Linton, 136 F.3d 544, 545 (7th\\nCir. 1998). So too does this standard reflect the reality that\\n\\f12 Nos. 18-1740 & 18-1791\\n\\nreceivers are often appointed to take charge of entities with\\nwhich they have had no prior involvement: imposing per-\\nsonal liability for mistakes in business judgment could dis-\\ncourage competent individuals from acting as receivers.\\nGiven the clarity and reasons supporting this standard in our\\ncaselaw—developed, to be sure, in the analogous bankruptcy\\ncontext—we conclude that the Illinois Supreme Court most\\nlikely would chart the same course as a matter of Illinois law.\\n The practical considerations warranting a heightened lia-\\nbility standard are far from fiction here. Take, for example, the\\nobservations the district court made in the underlying SEC\\nmatter. Judge Hibbler went out of his way to warn that\\n“Goulding’s obstinacy in the underlying litigation demon-\\nstrates an animosity towards the Receiver and provides fur-\\nther pause to be wary of any purported claim he might raise\\nagainst the Receiver, particularly in the absence of even a scin-\\ntilla of evidence that the Receiver acted in bad faith.” SEC v.\\nNutmeg Grp., LLC, No. 09 C 1775, 2011 WL 5042092, at *4 (N.D.\\nIll. Oct. 19, 2011). In much the same vein, Judge Hibbler ob-\\nserved that “[t]o say that Goulding has been uncooperative\\nwith the Receiver is to understate his recalcitrance.” Id.\\n In the end, we believe the Illinois Supreme Court would\\nrequire a showing that Weiss willfully and deliberately vio-\\nlated her fiduciary duties before imposing judgment for per-\\nsonal liability. Under this standard, the plaintiffs must show\\nthat Weiss intentionally took actions she knew violated her fi-\\nduciary duties. See, e.g., Petrovic v. Dep't of Employment Secu-\\nrity, 2016 IL 118562, ¶ 30–31 (defining “deliberate and willful”\\nin the context of the Illinois Unemployment Insurance Act as\\n“conscious act[s] made in violation of company rules, when\\nthe employee knows it is against the rules”); see also Levy v.\\n\\fNos. 18-1740 & 18-1791 13\\n\\nMarkal Sales Corp., 268 Ill. App. 3d 355, 380 (1st Dist. 1994)\\n(finding a “willful breach of a fiduciary duty” based on evi-\\ndence that corporate directors engaged in acts that were\\n“lacking in good faith, underhanded, deceitful and sly”).\\n Even if our prediction is mistaken, however, all agree that\\nIllinois law, at the very least, would hold Weiss to a standard\\nof gross negligence. See 805 ILCS 215/408(c). And the plain-\\ntiffs are quick to remind that this same gross negligence\\nstandard appears in the district court’s order appointing\\nWeiss as receiver in the first instance. Fair enough. It is cer-\\ntainly possible, especially as a matter of comity, that the Illi-\\nnois Supreme Court would inform its identification and defi-\\nnition of the controlling liability standard by the standard ap-\\npearing in the order appointing Weiss as receiver.\\n Under a gross negligence standard, the plaintiffs could not\\nrecover absent a showing that Weiss acted in her capacity as\\nreceiver with “reckless indifference to or deliberate disregard\\nof” her duties or that her actions were “without the bounds of\\nreason.” Sherman v. Ryan, 392 Ill. App. 3d 712, 732 (1st Dist.\\n2009) (quoting Benihana of Tokyo, Inc. v. Benihana, Inc., 891 A.2d\\n150, 192 (Del. Ch. 2005)).\\n We can stop short of staking out a more definitive position\\non the substantive liability standard, however. As our ensuing\\nanalysis shows, the district court properly determined that\\nthe record evidence required entry of summary judgment for\\nWeiss. This is so, we conclude, whether we apply the height-\\nened willful and deliberate standard or the lesser gross negli-\\ngence standard.\\n\\f14 Nos. 18-1740 & 18-1791\\n\\n III\\n The plaintiffs challenge the entry of summary judgment\\non sixteen distinct claims alleging that Weiss breached her fi-\\nduciary duties by failing to take certain actions like bringing\\nlawsuits, enforcing notes, converting debt owed to Nutmeg or\\none or another of its funds into stock, or entering into certain\\ntransactions.\\n We pause to highlight that, based on our review of the\\nbriefs, the plaintiffs do not challenge any aspect of the district\\ncourt’s rulings on the claims asserted against Barnes & Thorn-\\nburg. Accordingly, this appeal proceeds only as to the plain-\\ntiffs’ challenge to the district court’s resolution of claims\\nagainst Weiss as receiver. See Mahaffey v. Ramos, 588 F.3d 1142,\\n1146 (7th Cir. 2009) (declining to consider claims not ade-\\nquately briefed).\\n As to those claims, we review the district court’s grant of\\nsummary judgment de novo, construing all facts and drawing\\nall reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs’ favor as the non-\\nmoving party. See Van den Bosch v. Raemisch, 658 F.3d 778, 785\\n(7th Cir. 2011).\\n A\\n We begin with the plaintiffs’ claims challenging Weiss’s\\ndecisions to pursue or decline certain opportunities on behalf\\nof Nutmeg. As the plaintiffs see it, Weiss breached her fiduci-\\nary duties by failing to pursue certain litigation and by failing\\nto enforce certain judgments and promissory notes. The dis-\\ntrict court carefully considered and rejected this category of\\nclaims, and we see no error in its analysis. A few examples\\nsuffice to explain why.\\n\\fNos. 18-1740 & 18-1791 15\\n\\n Consider Count V. The plaintiffs alleged that Weiss\\nbreached her duties by failing to enforce a $2.7 million judg-\\nment held by a particular Nutmeg fund against an entity\\ncalled RMD Entertainment Group. While the plaintiffs assert\\nthat Weiss made no effort to settle or collect the judgment, the\\ndistrict court saw the facts otherwise. Instead, the court ex-\\nplained, the evidence demonstrates that Weiss investigated\\nthe collectability of the judgment by contacting RMD and\\nlearning not only that Nutmeg’s judgment may be defective,\\nbut also that RMD had no assets in the United States. But\\nWeiss did not stop at RMD’s word. She went further by con-\\nsulting a collection agency, which confirmed that RMD was\\njudgment proof. She then conveyed this information to the\\ndistrict court handling the SEC matter, explaining that she\\nhad contacted third parties to inquire about their interest in\\npurchasing the judgment but was unable to find a buyer. The\\nplaintiffs, although plainly disagreeing with Weiss’s business\\njudgment, did not show that this diligence never occurred. So,\\neven when viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs,\\nthe record shows that Weiss took steps to collect on this judg-\\nment and ultimately decided it was not worth pursuing. The\\ndistrict court was on sound footing concluding that no rea-\\nsonable jury could find that Weiss willfully or even recklessly\\nbreached her fiduciary duties.\\n Similarly, in Count XI, the plaintiffs alleged that Weiss\\nbreached her fiduciary duties by failing to follow Goulding’s\\nadvice and “d[oing] nothing” to monetize a defaulted con-\\nvertible note issued by North Bay Resources. But here, too, we\\nsee the evidence much the same way as the district court. The\\nrecord shows that Weiss contacted North Bay and explained\\nthat, based on Nutmeg’s records, she believed the firm still\\nowed on the note. North Bay disagreed, taking the position\\n\\f16 Nos. 18-1740 & 18-1791\\n\\nthat the note had been satisfied with shares issued to Nutmeg.\\nIn a sworn declaration, Weiss explained that, based on her\\ndue diligence, she made the decision not to expend further\\nresources to pursue a claim against North Bay. An informed\\ndecision not to move forward with a particular course of ac-\\ntion falls short of demonstrating a willful and deliberate (or,\\nfor that matter, a grossly negligent) violation of her duties.\\n We likewise agree with the district court that Count VII\\n(the plaintiffs’ third failure to enforce claim) and Counts X,\\nXIV, and XVI (relating to lawsuits on behalf of the Funds) fail\\nfor the same reasons. In each instance, the evidence shows\\nthat Weiss investigated the potential claims or litigation op-\\nportunities, considered the strengths and weaknesses of avail-\\nable options, and weighed the costs of pursuing certain op-\\nportunities before exercising her business judgment. The\\nplaintiffs, while vigorously disagreeing with Weiss’s deci-\\nsions, did not bring forth evidence to show that a jury could\\nfind that those decisions reflected a willful, deliberate, or\\ngrossly negligent breach of her fiduciary duties.\\n B\\n The plaintiffs also brought a series of claims (in Counts VI,\\nVIII, and XVII) alleging that Weiss breached her duties by fail-\\ning to convert debt owed to Nutmeg or to certain funds into\\nstock to be sold on the open market. Here again, though, the\\ndistrict court got it right in concluding that the record evi-\\ndence requires a contrary conclusion.\\n The plaintiffs allege three instances where, as they would\\nhave it, Weiss should have converted certain debt to stock and\\nthen liquidated the equity at a profit. For example, the plain-\\ntiffs contend that Weiss breached her duties by settling a\\n\\fNos. 18-1740 & 18-1791 17\\n\\n$50,000 note owed by an entity named GoIP Global, rather\\nthan exercising a right to convert the note to stock. Yet even if\\nwe credit the plaintiffs’ view that it was both feasible and ad-\\nvantageous for Weiss to convert the GoIP debt and sell the\\nstock, we agree with the district court that the plaintiffs’ alle-\\ngations, at most, support an inference that Weiss exercised\\npoor judgment. But a poor business decision falls well short\\nof demonstrating either a willful and deliberate or even a\\ngrossly negligent breach of her duties.\\n At a more specific level, the record shows that Weiss did\\nconvert some of the GoIP debt and tried to convert the re-\\nmainder, only to find GoIP non-responsive. She then sought,\\nreceived, and followed professional investment advice about\\nwhat to do with the remaining debt. Even viewing the facts in\\nthe plaintiffs’ strongest favor, we cannot conclude that Weiss\\ncame anywhere close to willfully, deliberately, or even negli-\\ngently offending her fiduciary obligations: she retained—and\\nsought guidance from—an investment advisory firm, and\\nwhen faced with two choices, she chose the option advised by\\nthe firm. Absent from the record are facts showing that Weiss\\nintended to harm the Funds by settling the GoIP debt rather\\nthan undertaking conversion and liquidation transactions.\\nAnd the record shows the same level of diligence as to the\\nfacts underlying the allegations in Counts VIII and XVII.\\n C\\n The plaintiffs also devote substantial attention to three\\nspecific claims against the receiver. Once again, though, the\\ndistrict court properly saw no genuine issue of material fact\\npertinent to these claims.\\n\\f18 Nos. 18-1740 & 18-1791\\n\\n First, in Count IV, the plaintiffs allege that Weiss breached\\nher fiduciary duties by failing to receive court approval to pay\\nany fees exceeding a $150,000 cap imposed by the district\\ncourt to Crowe Horwath, the accounting firm that advised her\\nin the execution of her receivership responsibilities. While it\\nis undisputed that Weiss incurred $168,000 in advisory fees\\nbeyond the cap, we agree with the district court that no rea-\\nsonable jury could find that her doing so reflected an inten-\\ntional breach of her fiduciary duties. The court handling the\\nSEC matter appointed Crowe Horwath before Weiss became\\nreceiver and explicitly authorized her to continue using the\\nfirm. The record also shows that Crowe Horwath estimated\\nits fees at $168,000 to complete its outstanding work. Weiss\\nshared this information with the district court and kept the\\ncourt informed of what Crowe Horwath was doing, why the\\nwork was needed, and how much it would cost. She also\\nheeded the court’s instruction to take a “conservative ap-\\nproach” by submitting payment requests in installments as\\nCrowe performed its work. While it is clear that the plaintiffs\\nbelieve Crowe Horwath’s work was unnecessary, what is\\nmissing is evidence showing that Weiss’s continued use of\\nCrowe’s services reflected a willful, deliberate, or grossly neg-\\nligent flouting of the district court’s directions or her fiduciary\\nduties. Indeed, neither the district court overseeing the SEC\\nmatter nor the Commission itself took issue with Weiss’s han-\\ndling of the additional payments for Crowe Horwath’s ser-\\nvices.\\n Second, in Count IX, the plaintiffs allege that Weiss\\nbreached her fiduciary duties by terminating a transaction\\nthat would have enabled Inverso Corp., a corporate shell\\nowned by several Nutmeg funds, to be used as a vehicle for\\nan initial public offering. Notably, however, in the SEC’s\\n\\fNos. 18-1740 & 18-1791 19\\n\\nmotion to appoint Weiss as receiver, the Commission flagged\\nthe Inverso deal and directed Weiss to review it. Upon doing\\nso Weiss chose to halt the transaction because it “reeked of a\\nscam.” In her sworn declarations, Weiss provided a detailed\\nexplanation of why she did not approve the transaction: she\\nquestioned its legitimacy and determined the business plan\\nwas implausible because, among other things, it projected In-\\nverso would gain 5% of the global market share for multiple\\nsclerosis treatment in just two years and 5% of global cancer\\ntreatment revenues in just four years with a budget of only a\\nfew million dollars. No evidence suggests Weiss formed these\\nviews on a whim or held them in willful or deliberate (or\\ngrossly negligent) disregard of her duties as receiver.\\n Third, Count XIX alleged that Weiss breached her fiduciary\\nduties by expending attorneys’ fees on a frivolous motion to\\nshow cause. In April 2010, in the SEC matter, Weiss filed a mo-\\ntion for an order to show cause against Goulding for his fail-\\nure to cooperate with her. She pointed to 11 different in-\\nstances of his noncooperation, one of which involved locating\\nevidence of investor approval to modify the operating agree-\\nment for the Nutmeg/Mercury LLP Fund. As it turned out,\\nhowever, Weiss already had the relevant documents in the\\nfiles seized from Nutmeg. Goulding reacted to learning of this\\nmistake by urging the district court in the SEC case to sanction\\nWeiss. The district court denied the motion, explaining that\\nthere was “no evidence of an intentional fraud, concealment\\nor conspiracy” on Weiss’s part and because “there [was] no\\nsuggestion that all of the other issues raised in the [r]eceiver’s\\nmotion also were without merit.” We see no error with this\\nconclusion.\\n\\f20 Nos. 18-1740 & 18-1791\\n\\n IV\\n The plaintiffs’ amended complaints and arguments on ap-\\npeal are expansive. Based upon our review of the record and\\nthe parties’ briefs, we have focused only on those claims that\\nwe believe warrant discussion. But our ultimate conclusion—\\nthat no reasonable jury could find that Weiss engaged in a\\nwillful, deliberate, or even grossly negligent breach of a fidu-\\nciary duty—applies with equal force to the totality of the\\nplaintiffs’ claims on appeal. For these reasons, we AFFIRM.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4423170/\", \"author_raw\": \"No. 1:12-cv-7373 - Joan Humphrey Lefkow, Judge\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"SYKES"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"SCUDDER"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":""},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645917/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":8,"string":"8"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Michael ALONSO, Individually and Derivatively on Behalf of Nutmeg/Mercury Fund, LLP (Hereinafter Within This Caption Mercury Fund, LLP), Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, and Randall S. Goulding, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Leslie J. WEISS and Barnes & Thornburg, Defendants-Appellees.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-08-06\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\n\n\nNos. 18-1740 & 18-1791\nMICHAEL ALONSO, individually and derivatively on behalf of\nNUTMEG/MERCURY FUND, LLP (hereinafter within this caption\nMERCURY FUND, LLP), et al.,\n Plaintiffs-Appellants,\n and\n\nRANDALL S. GOULDING,\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\n\n v.\n\nLESLIE J. WEISS and BARNES & THORNBURG,\n Defendants-Appellees.\n ____________________\n\n Appeals from the United States District Court for the\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\n No. 1:12-cv-7373 — Joan Humphrey Lefkow, Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED APRIL 11, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 6, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before SYKES, SCUDDER, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.\n\f2 Nos. 18-1740 & 18-1791\n\n SCUDDER, Circuit Judge. This appeal centers on the perfor-\nmance of the court-appointed receiver of financial advisory\nfirm Nutmeg Group, LLC. The district court appointed the re-\nceiver after the Securities and Exchange Commission initiated\nan enforcement action against Nutmeg and its managing\nmember, Randall Goulding. Against the Commission’s alle-\ngations of ongoing fraud and misappropriation of client as-\nsets, the district court presiding over the SEC matter entered\na temporary restraining order prohibiting Goulding from op-\nerating Nutmeg and appointed a receiver to oversee all as-\npects of the firm’s business.\n This civil suit followed. Goulding and a group of limited\npartners in one or more of the Nutmeg funds alleged that the\nreceiver breached her fiduciary duties and, in doing so, re-\nduced the value of the funds’ assets. After dismissing certain\ncounts, the district court entered summary judgment in the\nreceiver’s favor on all remaining claims. Because we agree\nthat no reasonable jury could find that the receiver engaged\nin a willful, deliberate, or even grossly negligent breach of a\nfiduciary duty, we affirm.\n I\n A\n Nutmeg Group, LLC, formerly managed by Randall\nGoulding, served as an investment advisor and sole general\npartner of more than a dozen investment funds, which we\nwill refer to collectively as the Funds. Each of the constituent\nfunds is a limited partnership under Illinois or Minnesota\nlaw. With Goulding at the helm, Nutmeg executed transac-\ntions on behalf of the Funds and oversaw their investment\nstrategies. Goulding’s management of the Funds ended in\n\fNos. 18-1740 & 18-1791 3\n\n2009, when the SEC brought an enforcement action against\nhim, Nutmeg, and others in the Northern District of Illinois,\nalleging violations of the Investment Advisors Act of 1940.\nThe thrust of the Commission’s complaint was that Nutmeg\nmisappropriated client assets and failed to maintain proper\nrecords. See SEC v. Nutmeg Grp., LLC, No. 09 C 1775, 2011 WL\n5042094 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 19, 2011).\n The district court handling the SEC action found that the\nCommission made the showing necessary to warrant the is-\nsuance of a restraining order prohibiting Goulding from man-\naging the Funds. The court also granted the SEC’s unopposed\nmotion to appoint attorney Leslie Weiss as receiver for Nut-\nmeg. The appointment order granted Weiss the authority to\n“oversee all aspects of Nutmeg’s operations and business,”\nincluding “serving as general partner and investment advi-\nsor” to the Funds. It also provided that, as receiver, Weiss was\n“solely the agent of [the] [c]ourt,” and should continue Nut-\nmeg’s business “in such manner, to such extent, and for such\nduration as [she] may in the exercise of her business judgment\nand in good faith deem to be necessary or appropriate.” The\norder directed Weiss to file regular status reports with the dis-\ntrict court detailing her acts as receiver.\n The appointment order separately addressed Weiss’s lia-\nbility, broadly providing that Weiss and any professionals she\nretained would not be held liable to anyone “for their own\ngood faith compliance with any order, rule, law, judgment, or\ndecree.” The order added that neither Weiss nor any retained\npersonnel would be held liable “with respect to the perfor-\nmance of their duties and responsibilities as Receiver and Re-\ntained Personnel . . . except upon a finding by [the district]\n[c]ourt that they acted or failed to act as a result of\n\f4 Nos. 18-1740 & 18-1791\n\nmalfeasance, bad faith, gross negligence or in reckless disre-\ngard of their duties.”\n B\n Following her appointment, Weiss submitted the required\nstatus reports to the district court. In her first report, she\nbroadly shared the results of her initial due diligence. She in-\nformed the court of her review of the Funds’ assets, which in-\ncluded convertible notes (many of which were in default);\nlawsuits or judgments against borrowers who had defaulted\non their notes or refused to convert notes to stocks; and\n“shells” of failed borrower companies that Nutmeg or the\nFunds had recovered when the companies defaulted on their\ndebt. Weiss also reported on her efforts to assess the collecta-\nbility of any outstanding judgments, while also conveying her\nconcern that some of the notes’ issuers were not financially\nstable. In time Weiss submitted additional reports informing\nthe district court of particular developments and challenges\nshe was encountering as well as decisions she was making as\nreceiver.\n To further fulfill her duties, Weiss sought assistance from\ninvestment advisors and attorneys. For example, in addition\nto retaining Barnes & Thornburg, the law firm where she is a\npartner, Weiss hired McClendon, Morrison & Partners, LLC\nas an investment advisor. She also consulted with a collection\nfirm regarding the collectability of certain judgments against\nborrowers who had defaulted on their notes.\n Unsatisfied with Weiss’s performance as receiver, Gould-\ning and a group of limited partners from certain funds man-\naged by Nutmeg filed an individual and derivative action on\nbehalf of the Funds. The complaint named as defendants\n\fNos. 18-1740 & 18-1791 5\n\nWeiss, Barnes & Thornburg, Nutmeg, and the Funds, and al-\nleged state-law claims for breach of fiduciary duty and legal\nmalpractice. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that Weiss\nbreached her fiduciary duties as receiver, including under Il-\nlinois’s and Minnesota’s partnership statutes, by failing to\npursue certain opportunities to the detriment of one or more\nof the Funds and, separately, by not converting certain debt\nowed to Nutmeg or a particular fund into stock to be sold on\nthe open market. The plaintiffs also brought a federal claim\npursuant to the Investment Advisors Act of 1940 and SEC\nRule 206(4)-2.\n For their part, Weiss and Barnes & Thornburg filed a mo-\ntion to dismiss, which the district court granted in part. The\ncourt dismissed the plaintiffs’ federal securities law claim as\nwell as several other counts in an amended complaint, includ-\ning all claims against Nutmeg, all legal malpractice claims\nagainst Weiss and Barnes & Thornburg, and two breach of fi-\nduciary duty claims against Weiss. These dismissals are not at\nissue on appeal.\n Weiss and Barnes & Thornburg then successfully moved\nfor summary judgment on the remaining seventeen counts. In\na detailed and thorough opinion, the district court assessed\neach of the plaintiffs’ allegations, concluding that even when\nviewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, no reason-\nable jury could find that either Weiss or Barnes & Thornburg\nwillfully and deliberately violated any fiduciary duties. On\nappeal the plaintiffs challenge the district court’s ruling on se-\nlect claims advanced against Weiss.\n\f6 Nos. 18-1740 & 18-1791\n\n II\n A\n We begin with a brief word on our appellate jurisdiction.\nWe do so because the plaintiffs’ amended complaint named\nnot only Weiss and Barnes & Thornburg as defendants, but\nalso Nutmeg and the Funds. The district court’s final judg-\nment did not address the Funds, however.\n We nonetheless agree with the parties that the district\ncourt’s judgment constituted a final and appealable judgment\nunder 28 U.S.C. § 1291. First, although the amended com-\nplaint named 13 separate funds as defendants, the plaintiffs\ndid not assert any claims against these entities or seek any re-\nlief from them. More to it, the summary judgment order, by\nits terms, expressly resolved all claims in the district court. See\nBaltimore Orioles, Inc. v. Major League Baseball Players Ass'n, 805\nF.2d 663, 666 (7th Cir. 1986) (explaining that “a decision is fi-\nnal for the purpose of § 1291 if it ends the litigation on the\nmerits and leaves nothing for the district court to do but exe-\ncute the judgment”). In these circumstances, our appellate ju-\nrisdiction is secure.\n And this is so despite ongoing proceedings in the district\ncourt in the underlying SEC enforcement action. The docket\nshows that the parties consented to a bench trial before a mag-\nistrate judge in January 2018. They are awaiting a decision.\nWe have no reason to believe any outcome of the bench trial\nwill affect this appeal, however.\n\fNos. 18-1740 & 18-1791 7\n\n B\n We turn next to the standard of liability governing the\nplaintiffs’ state-law claims for breach of fiduciary duty. The\nplaintiffs assert that Minnesota and Illinois law apply because\neach of the funds is either a Minnesota or Illinois limited part-\nnership. With both states having adopted the Uniform Lim-\nited Partnership Act—and the plaintiffs not identifying any\nconflict in the states’ respective interpretations of the Act—\nour analysis proceeds by applying Illinois law. We would\nreach the same conclusions under Minnesota law.\n To recover for a breach of fiduciary duty, Illinois law re-\nquired the plaintiffs to establish the existence of a fiduciary\nduty, a breach of that duty, and damages proximately caused\nby the breach. See Gross v. Town of Cicero, Ill., 619 F.3d 697, 709\n(7th Cir. 2010). On this much the parties agree. From there,\nhowever, they dispute the substantive standard to which\nWeiss should be held when assessing whether she breached\nher fiduciary duties as receiver.\n The district court relied on our 1985 decision in In re Chi-\ncago Pacific Corp. and determined that, to hold a court-ap-\npointed receiver personally liable, the plaintiffs must show\nthat Weiss engaged in a “willful and deliberate” violation of\nher fiduciary duties. 773 F.2d 909, 915 (7th Cir. 1985) (citing\nMosser v. Darrow, 341 U.S. 267, 272 (1951) and Sherr v. Winkler,\n552 F.2d 1367, 1375 (10th Cir. 1977)). In this way, the district\ncourt effectively saw the Illinois state-law standard of liability\nas mirroring the federal willful and deliberate standard an-\nnounced by the Supreme Court in the bankruptcy context in\nMosser v. Darrow, see 341 U.S. at 272, which we, in turn, have\napplied in cases involving alleged breaches of duty by bank-\nruptcy trustees. See, e.g., Grochocinski v. Mayer Brown Rowe &\n\f8 Nos. 18-1740 & 18-1791\n\nMaw, LLP, 719 F.3d 785, 800 (7th Cir. 2013); In re Chicago Pac.\nCorp., 773 F.2d at 915.\n The plaintiffs contend that the federal benchmark sets the\nliability bar too high. By their measure, the lesser gross negli-\ngence standard that the Illinois legislature made applicable to\nthe acts of all general partners reflects the proper rule of deci-\nsion. See 805 ILCS 215/408(c); see also Minn. Stat.\n§ 321.0408(c). This is especially so, the plaintiffs urge, because\nthe district court order appointing Weiss as receiver expressly\nstated that she could be held liable upon a showing of gross\nnegligence.\n The plaintiffs have some, but not all, of the analysis right.\nThey are right, of course, that they brought claims under Illi-\nnois (and Minnesota) law. They are equally right, as a matter\nof subject matter jurisdiction, that the doctrine of ancillary ju-\nrisdiction permitted them to bring these claims against Weiss,\na federally-appointed receiver, in the same federal court pre-\nsiding over the SEC action, here, the Northern District of Illi-\nnois. See, e.g., Robinson v. Michigan Consolidated Gas Co. Inc.,\n918 F.2d 579, 586 (6th Cir. 1990) (quoting C. WRIGHT & A.\nMILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 2985 at 45) (“It\nis well settled that ‘actions against a receiver arising out of his\nconduct of the receivership business may be brought in the\nappointing court even though there may not be any inde-\npendent grounds for asserting federal jurisdiction.’”).\n This case presents a slight wrinkle. Ordinarily in the re-\nceivership context, the exercise of ancillary jurisdiction would\nentail the same district judge responsible for the SEC matter\n(here, Judge Coleman) also hearing any claims asserted\nagainst a court-appointed receiver. Here the record shows\nthat the plaintiffs sought permission to file claims against the\n\fNos. 18-1740 & 18-1791 9\n\nreceiver and her appointed counsel in the Northern District of\nIllinois and Judge Coleman appropriately authorized the re-\nquest. But a different judge, Judge Lefkow, ultimately han-\ndled the plaintiffs’ ancillary claims. We can view all of this as\nreasonably occurring as part of the Northern District’s case\nmanagement following the death of Judge Hibbler, the dis-\ntrict judge who had presided over the SEC enforcement action\nsince its inception. In these circumstances, we agree with the\nplaintiffs that the district court properly exercised ancillary\njurisdiction over the claims challenging Weiss’s performance\nas a court-appointed receiver. For her part, Weiss too agrees\nthat the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over the\nplaintiffs’ claims.\n Turning to the claims themselves, we agree with the plain-\ntiffs that state law, and not federal bankruptcy law or federal\ncommon law, supplies the controlling standard of fiduciary\ncare. See 28 U.S.C. § 959(b) (stating that a court-appointed re-\nceiver “shall manage and operate the property in his posses-\nsion as such trustee, receiver or manager according to the re-\nquirements of the valid laws of the State in which such prop-\nerty is situated, in the same manner that the owner or posses-\nsor thereof would be bound to do if in possession thereof”).\n Where we part ways with the plaintiffs is in their insist-\nence that Weiss had to abide by the ordinary gross negligence\nstandard that both governs general partners under Illinois\n(and Minnesota) law and appears in the receivership appoint-\nment order. Put another way, the plaintiffs see Weiss as a gen-\neral partner, albeit court-appointed, who should be held to\nthe run-of-the-mill general partner standard of liability under\nIllinois law. If only the analysis was so straightforward.\n\f10 Nos. 18-1740 & 18-1791\n\n As a threshold matter, it is far from clear that the district\ncourt, in appointing Weiss as receiver, made her the general\npartner of the Funds. The appointment order, to be sure, au-\nthorized Weiss to “oversee all aspects of Nutmeg’s operations,\nwhich include, but are not limited to, serving as general part-\nner and investment advisor” to the Funds. While this lan-\nguage makes plain that Weiss acquired the authority held in\nthe ordinary course by a fund’s general partner, this is not the\nsame as making Weiss a general partner for any and all pur-\nposes, including for personal liability for a breach of a fiduci-\nary duty such that ordinary state partnership statutes should\napply.\n This conclusion is underscored by the fact that the ap-\npointment of Weiss as receiver was far from an ordinary-\ncourse event—indeed, it came upon a finding by the district\ncourt that Nutmeg, as the sole general partner of the Funds,\nand Goulding, as Nutmeg’s managing partner, had engaged\nin substantial malfeasance. What is more, the order appoint-\ning Weiss did not put her only in the former shoes of Nutmeg\nand Goulding. To the contrary, Weiss was appointed not as a\nfiduciary of any particular fund but instead “solely [as] the\nagent of th[e] Court in acting as Receiver,” and charged with\nthe broad responsibility of “tak[ing] such action necessary\nand appropriate to prevent the dissipation or concealment of\nany funds or assets constituting Receivership Property and\notherwise preserve any such funds and assets.”\n To identify the proper rule or decision, we need to ask\nwhat standard of fiduciary care Illinois courts have adopted,\nnot for ordinary general partners, but in the context of a court-\nappointed receiver. If Illinois caselaw does not supply the an-\nswer, the question becomes what standard the Illinois\n\fNos. 18-1740 & 18-1791 11\n\nSupreme Court would adopt if presented with the issue. See\nIn re Zimmer, NextGen Knee Implant Products Liab. Litig., 884\nF.3d 746, 751 (7th Cir. 2018) (collecting authorities and ex-\nplaining that a federal court’s task in applying state law is to\ndetermine how the state’s highest court would rule and,\nwhere a state’s courts have yet to address the question, to ex-\namine the law in other jurisdictions to discern the probable\ndirection of the state law at issue).\n Our research has identified no Illinois case addressing the\nquestion. But that observation does not lead to a dead end. In\npredicting what standard of liability the Illinois Supreme\nCourt would adopt, we have every reason to believe the court\nwould see a court-appointed receiver as just that—as an indi-\nvidual serving not as an ordinary fiduciary or general partner,\nbut instead at a federal court’s direction to fulfill unique re-\nsponsibilities. Here that would mean treating Weiss as a re-\nceiver appointed to oversee and to protect the assets of at least\n13 limited partnerships in the wake of a federal district court\nfinding substantial misconduct by Nutmeg and its former\nmanaging partner.\n Informed by our decision in Chicago Pacific Corp., we be-\nlieve the Illinois Supreme Court would arrive at the willful\nand deliberate standard of personal liability for a court-ap-\npointed receiver. See 773 F.2d at 915. This heightened stand-\nard of liability roots itself in the Supreme Court’s 1951 deci-\nsion in Mosser and accounts for the context in which a receiver\nis operating. The standard recognizes that if a receiver is “bur-\ndened with having to defend against suits by litigants disap-\npointed by his actions on the court’s behalf, his work for the\ncourt will be impeded.” Matter of Linton, 136 F.3d 544, 545 (7th\nCir. 1998). So too does this standard reflect the reality that\n\f12 Nos. 18-1740 & 18-1791\n\nreceivers are often appointed to take charge of entities with\nwhich they have had no prior involvement: imposing per-\nsonal liability for mistakes in business judgment could dis-\ncourage competent individuals from acting as receivers.\nGiven the clarity and reasons supporting this standard in our\ncaselaw—developed, to be sure, in the analogous bankruptcy\ncontext—we conclude that the Illinois Supreme Court most\nlikely would chart the same course as a matter of Illinois law.\n The practical considerations warranting a heightened lia-\nbility standard are far from fiction here. Take, for example, the\nobservations the district court made in the underlying SEC\nmatter. Judge Hibbler went out of his way to warn that\n“Goulding’s obstinacy in the underlying litigation demon-\nstrates an animosity towards the Receiver and provides fur-\nther pause to be wary of any purported claim he might raise\nagainst the Receiver, particularly in the absence of even a scin-\ntilla of evidence that the Receiver acted in bad faith.” SEC v.\nNutmeg Grp., LLC, No. 09 C 1775, 2011 WL 5042092, at *4 (N.D.\nIll. Oct. 19, 2011). In much the same vein, Judge Hibbler ob-\nserved that “[t]o say that Goulding has been uncooperative\nwith the Receiver is to understate his recalcitrance.” Id.\n In the end, we believe the Illinois Supreme Court would\nrequire a showing that Weiss willfully and deliberately vio-\nlated her fiduciary duties before imposing judgment for per-\nsonal liability. Under this standard, the plaintiffs must show\nthat Weiss intentionally took actions she knew violated her fi-\nduciary duties. See, e.g., Petrovic v. Dep't of Employment Secu-\nrity, 2016 IL 118562, ¶ 30–31 (defining “deliberate and willful”\nin the context of the Illinois Unemployment Insurance Act as\n“conscious act[s] made in violation of company rules, when\nthe employee knows it is against the rules”); see also Levy v.\n\fNos. 18-1740 & 18-1791 13\n\nMarkal Sales Corp., 268 Ill. App. 3d 355, 380 (1st Dist. 1994)\n(finding a “willful breach of a fiduciary duty” based on evi-\ndence that corporate directors engaged in acts that were\n“lacking in good faith, underhanded, deceitful and sly”).\n Even if our prediction is mistaken, however, all agree that\nIllinois law, at the very least, would hold Weiss to a standard\nof gross negligence. See 805 ILCS 215/408(c). And the plain-\ntiffs are quick to remind that this same gross negligence\nstandard appears in the district court’s order appointing\nWeiss as receiver in the first instance. Fair enough. It is cer-\ntainly possible, especially as a matter of comity, that the Illi-\nnois Supreme Court would inform its identification and defi-\nnition of the controlling liability standard by the standard ap-\npearing in the order appointing Weiss as receiver.\n Under a gross negligence standard, the plaintiffs could not\nrecover absent a showing that Weiss acted in her capacity as\nreceiver with “reckless indifference to or deliberate disregard\nof” her duties or that her actions were “without the bounds of\nreason.” Sherman v. Ryan, 392 Ill. App. 3d 712, 732 (1st Dist.\n2009) (quoting Benihana of Tokyo, Inc. v. Benihana, Inc., 891 A.2d\n150, 192 (Del. Ch. 2005)).\n We can stop short of staking out a more definitive position\non the substantive liability standard, however. As our ensuing\nanalysis shows, the district court properly determined that\nthe record evidence required entry of summary judgment for\nWeiss. This is so, we conclude, whether we apply the height-\nened willful and deliberate standard or the lesser gross negli-\ngence standard.\n\f14 Nos. 18-1740 & 18-1791\n\n III\n The plaintiffs challenge the entry of summary judgment\non sixteen distinct claims alleging that Weiss breached her fi-\nduciary duties by failing to take certain actions like bringing\nlawsuits, enforcing notes, converting debt owed to Nutmeg or\none or another of its funds into stock, or entering into certain\ntransactions.\n We pause to highlight that, based on our review of the\nbriefs, the plaintiffs do not challenge any aspect of the district\ncourt’s rulings on the claims asserted against Barnes & Thorn-\nburg. Accordingly, this appeal proceeds only as to the plain-\ntiffs’ challenge to the district court’s resolution of claims\nagainst Weiss as receiver. See Mahaffey v. Ramos, 588 F.3d 1142,\n1146 (7th Cir. 2009) (declining to consider claims not ade-\nquately briefed).\n As to those claims, we review the district court’s grant of\nsummary judgment de novo, construing all facts and drawing\nall reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs’ favor as the non-\nmoving party. See Van den Bosch v. Raemisch, 658 F.3d 778, 785\n(7th Cir. 2011).\n A\n We begin with the plaintiffs’ claims challenging Weiss’s\ndecisions to pursue or decline certain opportunities on behalf\nof Nutmeg. As the plaintiffs see it, Weiss breached her fiduci-\nary duties by failing to pursue certain litigation and by failing\nto enforce certain judgments and promissory notes. The dis-\ntrict court carefully considered and rejected this category of\nclaims, and we see no error in its analysis. A few examples\nsuffice to explain why.\n\fNos. 18-1740 & 18-1791 15\n\n Consider Count V. The plaintiffs alleged that Weiss\nbreached her duties by failing to enforce a $2.7 million judg-\nment held by a particular Nutmeg fund against an entity\ncalled RMD Entertainment Group. While the plaintiffs assert\nthat Weiss made no effort to settle or collect the judgment, the\ndistrict court saw the facts otherwise. Instead, the court ex-\nplained, the evidence demonstrates that Weiss investigated\nthe collectability of the judgment by contacting RMD and\nlearning not only that Nutmeg’s judgment may be defective,\nbut also that RMD had no assets in the United States. But\nWeiss did not stop at RMD’s word. She went further by con-\nsulting a collection agency, which confirmed that RMD was\njudgment proof. She then conveyed this information to the\ndistrict court handling the SEC matter, explaining that she\nhad contacted third parties to inquire about their interest in\npurchasing the judgment but was unable to find a buyer. The\nplaintiffs, although plainly disagreeing with Weiss’s business\njudgment, did not show that this diligence never occurred. So,\neven when viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs,\nthe record shows that Weiss took steps to collect on this judg-\nment and ultimately decided it was not worth pursuing. The\ndistrict court was on sound footing concluding that no rea-\nsonable jury could find that Weiss willfully or even recklessly\nbreached her fiduciary duties.\n Similarly, in Count XI, the plaintiffs alleged that Weiss\nbreached her fiduciary duties by failing to follow Goulding’s\nadvice and “d[oing] nothing” to monetize a defaulted con-\nvertible note issued by North Bay Resources. But here, too, we\nsee the evidence much the same way as the district court. The\nrecord shows that Weiss contacted North Bay and explained\nthat, based on Nutmeg’s records, she believed the firm still\nowed on the note. North Bay disagreed, taking the position\n\f16 Nos. 18-1740 & 18-1791\n\nthat the note had been satisfied with shares issued to Nutmeg.\nIn a sworn declaration, Weiss explained that, based on her\ndue diligence, she made the decision not to expend further\nresources to pursue a claim against North Bay. An informed\ndecision not to move forward with a particular course of ac-\ntion falls short of demonstrating a willful and deliberate (or,\nfor that matter, a grossly negligent) violation of her duties.\n We likewise agree with the district court that Count VII\n(the plaintiffs’ third failure to enforce claim) and Counts X,\nXIV, and XVI (relating to lawsuits on behalf of the Funds) fail\nfor the same reasons. In each instance, the evidence shows\nthat Weiss investigated the potential claims or litigation op-\nportunities, considered the strengths and weaknesses of avail-\nable options, and weighed the costs of pursuing certain op-\nportunities before exercising her business judgment. The\nplaintiffs, while vigorously disagreeing with Weiss’s deci-\nsions, did not bring forth evidence to show that a jury could\nfind that those decisions reflected a willful, deliberate, or\ngrossly negligent breach of her fiduciary duties.\n B\n The plaintiffs also brought a series of claims (in Counts VI,\nVIII, and XVII) alleging that Weiss breached her duties by fail-\ning to convert debt owed to Nutmeg or to certain funds into\nstock to be sold on the open market. Here again, though, the\ndistrict court got it right in concluding that the record evi-\ndence requires a contrary conclusion.\n The plaintiffs allege three instances where, as they would\nhave it, Weiss should have converted certain debt to stock and\nthen liquidated the equity at a profit. For example, the plain-\ntiffs contend that Weiss breached her duties by settling a\n\fNos. 18-1740 & 18-1791 17\n\n$50,000 note owed by an entity named GoIP Global, rather\nthan exercising a right to convert the note to stock. Yet even if\nwe credit the plaintiffs’ view that it was both feasible and ad-\nvantageous for Weiss to convert the GoIP debt and sell the\nstock, we agree with the district court that the plaintiffs’ alle-\ngations, at most, support an inference that Weiss exercised\npoor judgment. But a poor business decision falls well short\nof demonstrating either a willful and deliberate or even a\ngrossly negligent breach of her duties.\n At a more specific level, the record shows that Weiss did\nconvert some of the GoIP debt and tried to convert the re-\nmainder, only to find GoIP non-responsive. She then sought,\nreceived, and followed professional investment advice about\nwhat to do with the remaining debt. Even viewing the facts in\nthe plaintiffs’ strongest favor, we cannot conclude that Weiss\ncame anywhere close to willfully, deliberately, or even negli-\ngently offending her fiduciary obligations: she retained—and\nsought guidance from—an investment advisory firm, and\nwhen faced with two choices, she chose the option advised by\nthe firm. Absent from the record are facts showing that Weiss\nintended to harm the Funds by settling the GoIP debt rather\nthan undertaking conversion and liquidation transactions.\nAnd the record shows the same level of diligence as to the\nfacts underlying the allegations in Counts VIII and XVII.\n C\n The plaintiffs also devote substantial attention to three\nspecific claims against the receiver. Once again, though, the\ndistrict court properly saw no genuine issue of material fact\npertinent to these claims.\n\f18 Nos. 18-1740 & 18-1791\n\n First, in Count IV, the plaintiffs allege that Weiss breached\nher fiduciary duties by failing to receive court approval to pay\nany fees exceeding a $150,000 cap imposed by the district\ncourt to Crowe Horwath, the accounting firm that advised her\nin the execution of her receivership responsibilities. While it\nis undisputed that Weiss incurred $168,000 in advisory fees\nbeyond the cap, we agree with the district court that no rea-\nsonable jury could find that her doing so reflected an inten-\ntional breach of her fiduciary duties. The court handling the\nSEC matter appointed Crowe Horwath before Weiss became\nreceiver and explicitly authorized her to continue using the\nfirm. The record also shows that Crowe Horwath estimated\nits fees at $168,000 to complete its outstanding work. Weiss\nshared this information with the district court and kept the\ncourt informed of what Crowe Horwath was doing, why the\nwork was needed, and how much it would cost. She also\nheeded the court’s instruction to take a “conservative ap-\nproach” by submitting payment requests in installments as\nCrowe performed its work. While it is clear that the plaintiffs\nbelieve Crowe Horwath’s work was unnecessary, what is\nmissing is evidence showing that Weiss’s continued use of\nCrowe’s services reflected a willful, deliberate, or grossly neg-\nligent flouting of the district court’s directions or her fiduciary\nduties. Indeed, neither the district court overseeing the SEC\nmatter nor the Commission itself took issue with Weiss’s han-\ndling of the additional payments for Crowe Horwath’s ser-\nvices.\n Second, in Count IX, the plaintiffs allege that Weiss\nbreached her fiduciary duties by terminating a transaction\nthat would have enabled Inverso Corp., a corporate shell\nowned by several Nutmeg funds, to be used as a vehicle for\nan initial public offering. Notably, however, in the SEC’s\n\fNos. 18-1740 & 18-1791 19\n\nmotion to appoint Weiss as receiver, the Commission flagged\nthe Inverso deal and directed Weiss to review it. Upon doing\nso Weiss chose to halt the transaction because it “reeked of a\nscam.” In her sworn declarations, Weiss provided a detailed\nexplanation of why she did not approve the transaction: she\nquestioned its legitimacy and determined the business plan\nwas implausible because, among other things, it projected In-\nverso would gain 5% of the global market share for multiple\nsclerosis treatment in just two years and 5% of global cancer\ntreatment revenues in just four years with a budget of only a\nfew million dollars. No evidence suggests Weiss formed these\nviews on a whim or held them in willful or deliberate (or\ngrossly negligent) disregard of her duties as receiver.\n Third, Count XIX alleged that Weiss breached her fiduciary\nduties by expending attorneys’ fees on a frivolous motion to\nshow cause. In April 2010, in the SEC matter, Weiss filed a mo-\ntion for an order to show cause against Goulding for his fail-\nure to cooperate with her. She pointed to 11 different in-\nstances of his noncooperation, one of which involved locating\nevidence of investor approval to modify the operating agree-\nment for the Nutmeg/Mercury LLP Fund. As it turned out,\nhowever, Weiss already had the relevant documents in the\nfiles seized from Nutmeg. Goulding reacted to learning of this\nmistake by urging the district court in the SEC case to sanction\nWeiss. The district court denied the motion, explaining that\nthere was “no evidence of an intentional fraud, concealment\nor conspiracy” on Weiss’s part and because “there [was] no\nsuggestion that all of the other issues raised in the [r]eceiver’s\nmotion also were without merit.” We see no error with this\nconclusion.\n\f20 Nos. 18-1740 & 18-1791\n\n IV\n The plaintiffs’ amended complaints and arguments on ap-\npeal are expansive. Based upon our review of the record and\nthe parties’ briefs, we have focused only on those claims that\nwe believe warrant discussion. But our ultimate conclusion—\nthat no reasonable jury could find that Weiss engaged in a\nwillful, deliberate, or even grossly negligent breach of a fidu-\nciary duty—applies with equal force to the totality of the\nplaintiffs’ claims on appeal. For these reasons, we AFFIRM.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Michael ALONSO, Individually and Derivatively on Behalf of Nutmeg/Mercury Fund, LLP (Hereinafter Within This Caption Mercury Fund, LLP), Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, and Randall S. Goulding, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Leslie J. WEISS and Barnes & Thornburg, Defendants-Appellees.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-08-06\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\n\\n\\nNos. 18-1740 & 18-1791\\nMICHAEL ALONSO, individually and derivatively on behalf of\\nNUTMEG/MERCURY FUND, LLP (hereinafter within this caption\\nMERCURY FUND, LLP), et al.,\\n Plaintiffs-Appellants,\\n and\\n\\nRANDALL S. GOULDING,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n\\n v.\\n\\nLESLIE J. WEISS and BARNES & THORNBURG,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeals from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 1:12-cv-7373 — Joan Humphrey Lefkow, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED APRIL 11, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 6, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before SYKES, SCUDDER, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.\\n\\f2 Nos. 18-1740 & 18-1791\\n\\n SCUDDER, Circuit Judge. This appeal centers on the perfor-\\nmance of the court-appointed receiver of financial advisory\\nfirm Nutmeg Group, LLC. The district court appointed the re-\\nceiver after the Securities and Exchange Commission initiated\\nan enforcement action against Nutmeg and its managing\\nmember, Randall Goulding. Against the Commission’s alle-\\ngations of ongoing fraud and misappropriation of client as-\\nsets, the district court presiding over the SEC matter entered\\na temporary restraining order prohibiting Goulding from op-\\nerating Nutmeg and appointed a receiver to oversee all as-\\npects of the firm’s business.\\n This civil suit followed. Goulding and a group of limited\\npartners in one or more of the Nutmeg funds alleged that the\\nreceiver breached her fiduciary duties and, in doing so, re-\\nduced the value of the funds’ assets. After dismissing certain\\ncounts, the district court entered summary judgment in the\\nreceiver’s favor on all remaining claims. Because we agree\\nthat no reasonable jury could find that the receiver engaged\\nin a willful, deliberate, or even grossly negligent breach of a\\nfiduciary duty, we affirm.\\n I\\n A\\n Nutmeg Group, LLC, formerly managed by Randall\\nGoulding, served as an investment advisor and sole general\\npartner of more than a dozen investment funds, which we\\nwill refer to collectively as the Funds. Each of the constituent\\nfunds is a limited partnership under Illinois or Minnesota\\nlaw. With Goulding at the helm, Nutmeg executed transac-\\ntions on behalf of the Funds and oversaw their investment\\nstrategies. Goulding’s management of the Funds ended in\\n\\fNos. 18-1740 & 18-1791 3\\n\\n2009, when the SEC brought an enforcement action against\\nhim, Nutmeg, and others in the Northern District of Illinois,\\nalleging violations of the Investment Advisors Act of 1940.\\nThe thrust of the Commission’s complaint was that Nutmeg\\nmisappropriated client assets and failed to maintain proper\\nrecords. See SEC v. Nutmeg Grp., LLC, No. 09 C 1775, 2011 WL\\n5042094 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 19, 2011).\\n The district court handling the SEC action found that the\\nCommission made the showing necessary to warrant the is-\\nsuance of a restraining order prohibiting Goulding from man-\\naging the Funds. The court also granted the SEC’s unopposed\\nmotion to appoint attorney Leslie Weiss as receiver for Nut-\\nmeg. The appointment order granted Weiss the authority to\\n“oversee all aspects of Nutmeg’s operations and business,”\\nincluding “serving as general partner and investment advi-\\nsor” to the Funds. It also provided that, as receiver, Weiss was\\n“solely the agent of [the] [c]ourt,” and should continue Nut-\\nmeg’s business “in such manner, to such extent, and for such\\nduration as [she] may in the exercise of her business judgment\\nand in good faith deem to be necessary or appropriate.” The\\norder directed Weiss to file regular status reports with the dis-\\ntrict court detailing her acts as receiver.\\n The appointment order separately addressed Weiss’s lia-\\nbility, broadly providing that Weiss and any professionals she\\nretained would not be held liable to anyone “for their own\\ngood faith compliance with any order, rule, law, judgment, or\\ndecree.” The order added that neither Weiss nor any retained\\npersonnel would be held liable “with respect to the perfor-\\nmance of their duties and responsibilities as Receiver and Re-\\ntained Personnel . . . except upon a finding by [the district]\\n[c]ourt that they acted or failed to act as a result of\\n\\f4 Nos. 18-1740 & 18-1791\\n\\nmalfeasance, bad faith, gross negligence or in reckless disre-\\ngard of their duties.”\\n B\\n Following her appointment, Weiss submitted the required\\nstatus reports to the district court. In her first report, she\\nbroadly shared the results of her initial due diligence. She in-\\nformed the court of her review of the Funds’ assets, which in-\\ncluded convertible notes (many of which were in default);\\nlawsuits or judgments against borrowers who had defaulted\\non their notes or refused to convert notes to stocks; and\\n“shells” of failed borrower companies that Nutmeg or the\\nFunds had recovered when the companies defaulted on their\\ndebt. Weiss also reported on her efforts to assess the collecta-\\nbility of any outstanding judgments, while also conveying her\\nconcern that some of the notes’ issuers were not financially\\nstable. In time Weiss submitted additional reports informing\\nthe district court of particular developments and challenges\\nshe was encountering as well as decisions she was making as\\nreceiver.\\n To further fulfill her duties, Weiss sought assistance from\\ninvestment advisors and attorneys. For example, in addition\\nto retaining Barnes & Thornburg, the law firm where she is a\\npartner, Weiss hired McClendon, Morrison & Partners, LLC\\nas an investment advisor. She also consulted with a collection\\nfirm regarding the collectability of certain judgments against\\nborrowers who had defaulted on their notes.\\n Unsatisfied with Weiss’s performance as receiver, Gould-\\ning and a group of limited partners from certain funds man-\\naged by Nutmeg filed an individual and derivative action on\\nbehalf of the Funds. The complaint named as defendants\\n\\fNos. 18-1740 & 18-1791 5\\n\\nWeiss, Barnes & Thornburg, Nutmeg, and the Funds, and al-\\nleged state-law claims for breach of fiduciary duty and legal\\nmalpractice. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that Weiss\\nbreached her fiduciary duties as receiver, including under Il-\\nlinois’s and Minnesota’s partnership statutes, by failing to\\npursue certain opportunities to the detriment of one or more\\nof the Funds and, separately, by not converting certain debt\\nowed to Nutmeg or a particular fund into stock to be sold on\\nthe open market. The plaintiffs also brought a federal claim\\npursuant to the Investment Advisors Act of 1940 and SEC\\nRule 206(4)-2.\\n For their part, Weiss and Barnes & Thornburg filed a mo-\\ntion to dismiss, which the district court granted in part. The\\ncourt dismissed the plaintiffs’ federal securities law claim as\\nwell as several other counts in an amended complaint, includ-\\ning all claims against Nutmeg, all legal malpractice claims\\nagainst Weiss and Barnes & Thornburg, and two breach of fi-\\nduciary duty claims against Weiss. These dismissals are not at\\nissue on appeal.\\n Weiss and Barnes & Thornburg then successfully moved\\nfor summary judgment on the remaining seventeen counts. In\\na detailed and thorough opinion, the district court assessed\\neach of the plaintiffs’ allegations, concluding that even when\\nviewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, no reason-\\nable jury could find that either Weiss or Barnes & Thornburg\\nwillfully and deliberately violated any fiduciary duties. On\\nappeal the plaintiffs challenge the district court’s ruling on se-\\nlect claims advanced against Weiss.\\n\\f6 Nos. 18-1740 & 18-1791\\n\\n II\\n A\\n We begin with a brief word on our appellate jurisdiction.\\nWe do so because the plaintiffs’ amended complaint named\\nnot only Weiss and Barnes & Thornburg as defendants, but\\nalso Nutmeg and the Funds. The district court’s final judg-\\nment did not address the Funds, however.\\n We nonetheless agree with the parties that the district\\ncourt’s judgment constituted a final and appealable judgment\\nunder 28 U.S.C. § 1291. First, although the amended com-\\nplaint named 13 separate funds as defendants, the plaintiffs\\ndid not assert any claims against these entities or seek any re-\\nlief from them. More to it, the summary judgment order, by\\nits terms, expressly resolved all claims in the district court. See\\nBaltimore Orioles, Inc. v. Major League Baseball Players Ass'n, 805\\nF.2d 663, 666 (7th Cir. 1986) (explaining that “a decision is fi-\\nnal for the purpose of § 1291 if it ends the litigation on the\\nmerits and leaves nothing for the district court to do but exe-\\ncute the judgment”). In these circumstances, our appellate ju-\\nrisdiction is secure.\\n And this is so despite ongoing proceedings in the district\\ncourt in the underlying SEC enforcement action. The docket\\nshows that the parties consented to a bench trial before a mag-\\nistrate judge in January 2018. They are awaiting a decision.\\nWe have no reason to believe any outcome of the bench trial\\nwill affect this appeal, however.\\n\\fNos. 18-1740 & 18-1791 7\\n\\n B\\n We turn next to the standard of liability governing the\\nplaintiffs’ state-law claims for breach of fiduciary duty. The\\nplaintiffs assert that Minnesota and Illinois law apply because\\neach of the funds is either a Minnesota or Illinois limited part-\\nnership. With both states having adopted the Uniform Lim-\\nited Partnership Act—and the plaintiffs not identifying any\\nconflict in the states’ respective interpretations of the Act—\\nour analysis proceeds by applying Illinois law. We would\\nreach the same conclusions under Minnesota law.\\n To recover for a breach of fiduciary duty, Illinois law re-\\nquired the plaintiffs to establish the existence of a fiduciary\\nduty, a breach of that duty, and damages proximately caused\\nby the breach. See Gross v. Town of Cicero, Ill., 619 F.3d 697, 709\\n(7th Cir. 2010). On this much the parties agree. From there,\\nhowever, they dispute the substantive standard to which\\nWeiss should be held when assessing whether she breached\\nher fiduciary duties as receiver.\\n The district court relied on our 1985 decision in In re Chi-\\ncago Pacific Corp. and determined that, to hold a court-ap-\\npointed receiver personally liable, the plaintiffs must show\\nthat Weiss engaged in a “willful and deliberate” violation of\\nher fiduciary duties. 773 F.2d 909, 915 (7th Cir. 1985) (citing\\nMosser v. Darrow, 341 U.S. 267, 272 (1951) and Sherr v. Winkler,\\n552 F.2d 1367, 1375 (10th Cir. 1977)). In this way, the district\\ncourt effectively saw the Illinois state-law standard of liability\\nas mirroring the federal willful and deliberate standard an-\\nnounced by the Supreme Court in the bankruptcy context in\\nMosser v. Darrow, see 341 U.S. at 272, which we, in turn, have\\napplied in cases involving alleged breaches of duty by bank-\\nruptcy trustees. See, e.g., Grochocinski v. Mayer Brown Rowe &\\n\\f8 Nos. 18-1740 & 18-1791\\n\\nMaw, LLP, 719 F.3d 785, 800 (7th Cir. 2013); In re Chicago Pac.\\nCorp., 773 F.2d at 915.\\n The plaintiffs contend that the federal benchmark sets the\\nliability bar too high. By their measure, the lesser gross negli-\\ngence standard that the Illinois legislature made applicable to\\nthe acts of all general partners reflects the proper rule of deci-\\nsion. See 805 ILCS 215/408(c); see also Minn. Stat.\\n§ 321.0408(c). This is especially so, the plaintiffs urge, because\\nthe district court order appointing Weiss as receiver expressly\\nstated that she could be held liable upon a showing of gross\\nnegligence.\\n The plaintiffs have some, but not all, of the analysis right.\\nThey are right, of course, that they brought claims under Illi-\\nnois (and Minnesota) law. They are equally right, as a matter\\nof subject matter jurisdiction, that the doctrine of ancillary ju-\\nrisdiction permitted them to bring these claims against Weiss,\\na federally-appointed receiver, in the same federal court pre-\\nsiding over the SEC action, here, the Northern District of Illi-\\nnois. See, e.g., Robinson v. Michigan Consolidated Gas Co. Inc.,\\n918 F.2d 579, 586 (6th Cir. 1990) (quoting C. WRIGHT & A.\\nMILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 2985 at 45) (“It\\nis well settled that ‘actions against a receiver arising out of his\\nconduct of the receivership business may be brought in the\\nappointing court even though there may not be any inde-\\npendent grounds for asserting federal jurisdiction.’”).\\n This case presents a slight wrinkle. Ordinarily in the re-\\nceivership context, the exercise of ancillary jurisdiction would\\nentail the same district judge responsible for the SEC matter\\n(here, Judge Coleman) also hearing any claims asserted\\nagainst a court-appointed receiver. Here the record shows\\nthat the plaintiffs sought permission to file claims against the\\n\\fNos. 18-1740 & 18-1791 9\\n\\nreceiver and her appointed counsel in the Northern District of\\nIllinois and Judge Coleman appropriately authorized the re-\\nquest. But a different judge, Judge Lefkow, ultimately han-\\ndled the plaintiffs’ ancillary claims. We can view all of this as\\nreasonably occurring as part of the Northern District’s case\\nmanagement following the death of Judge Hibbler, the dis-\\ntrict judge who had presided over the SEC enforcement action\\nsince its inception. In these circumstances, we agree with the\\nplaintiffs that the district court properly exercised ancillary\\njurisdiction over the claims challenging Weiss’s performance\\nas a court-appointed receiver. For her part, Weiss too agrees\\nthat the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over the\\nplaintiffs’ claims.\\n Turning to the claims themselves, we agree with the plain-\\ntiffs that state law, and not federal bankruptcy law or federal\\ncommon law, supplies the controlling standard of fiduciary\\ncare. See 28 U.S.C. § 959(b) (stating that a court-appointed re-\\nceiver “shall manage and operate the property in his posses-\\nsion as such trustee, receiver or manager according to the re-\\nquirements of the valid laws of the State in which such prop-\\nerty is situated, in the same manner that the owner or posses-\\nsor thereof would be bound to do if in possession thereof”).\\n Where we part ways with the plaintiffs is in their insist-\\nence that Weiss had to abide by the ordinary gross negligence\\nstandard that both governs general partners under Illinois\\n(and Minnesota) law and appears in the receivership appoint-\\nment order. Put another way, the plaintiffs see Weiss as a gen-\\neral partner, albeit court-appointed, who should be held to\\nthe run-of-the-mill general partner standard of liability under\\nIllinois law. If only the analysis was so straightforward.\\n\\f10 Nos. 18-1740 & 18-1791\\n\\n As a threshold matter, it is far from clear that the district\\ncourt, in appointing Weiss as receiver, made her the general\\npartner of the Funds. The appointment order, to be sure, au-\\nthorized Weiss to “oversee all aspects of Nutmeg’s operations,\\nwhich include, but are not limited to, serving as general part-\\nner and investment advisor” to the Funds. While this lan-\\nguage makes plain that Weiss acquired the authority held in\\nthe ordinary course by a fund’s general partner, this is not the\\nsame as making Weiss a general partner for any and all pur-\\nposes, including for personal liability for a breach of a fiduci-\\nary duty such that ordinary state partnership statutes should\\napply.\\n This conclusion is underscored by the fact that the ap-\\npointment of Weiss as receiver was far from an ordinary-\\ncourse event—indeed, it came upon a finding by the district\\ncourt that Nutmeg, as the sole general partner of the Funds,\\nand Goulding, as Nutmeg’s managing partner, had engaged\\nin substantial malfeasance. What is more, the order appoint-\\ning Weiss did not put her only in the former shoes of Nutmeg\\nand Goulding. To the contrary, Weiss was appointed not as a\\nfiduciary of any particular fund but instead “solely [as] the\\nagent of th[e] Court in acting as Receiver,” and charged with\\nthe broad responsibility of “tak[ing] such action necessary\\nand appropriate to prevent the dissipation or concealment of\\nany funds or assets constituting Receivership Property and\\notherwise preserve any such funds and assets.”\\n To identify the proper rule or decision, we need to ask\\nwhat standard of fiduciary care Illinois courts have adopted,\\nnot for ordinary general partners, but in the context of a court-\\nappointed receiver. If Illinois caselaw does not supply the an-\\nswer, the question becomes what standard the Illinois\\n\\fNos. 18-1740 & 18-1791 11\\n\\nSupreme Court would adopt if presented with the issue. See\\nIn re Zimmer, NextGen Knee Implant Products Liab. Litig., 884\\nF.3d 746, 751 (7th Cir. 2018) (collecting authorities and ex-\\nplaining that a federal court’s task in applying state law is to\\ndetermine how the state’s highest court would rule and,\\nwhere a state’s courts have yet to address the question, to ex-\\namine the law in other jurisdictions to discern the probable\\ndirection of the state law at issue).\\n Our research has identified no Illinois case addressing the\\nquestion. But that observation does not lead to a dead end. In\\npredicting what standard of liability the Illinois Supreme\\nCourt would adopt, we have every reason to believe the court\\nwould see a court-appointed receiver as just that—as an indi-\\nvidual serving not as an ordinary fiduciary or general partner,\\nbut instead at a federal court’s direction to fulfill unique re-\\nsponsibilities. Here that would mean treating Weiss as a re-\\nceiver appointed to oversee and to protect the assets of at least\\n13 limited partnerships in the wake of a federal district court\\nfinding substantial misconduct by Nutmeg and its former\\nmanaging partner.\\n Informed by our decision in Chicago Pacific Corp., we be-\\nlieve the Illinois Supreme Court would arrive at the willful\\nand deliberate standard of personal liability for a court-ap-\\npointed receiver. See 773 F.2d at 915. This heightened stand-\\nard of liability roots itself in the Supreme Court’s 1951 deci-\\nsion in Mosser and accounts for the context in which a receiver\\nis operating. The standard recognizes that if a receiver is “bur-\\ndened with having to defend against suits by litigants disap-\\npointed by his actions on the court’s behalf, his work for the\\ncourt will be impeded.” Matter of Linton, 136 F.3d 544, 545 (7th\\nCir. 1998). So too does this standard reflect the reality that\\n\\f12 Nos. 18-1740 & 18-1791\\n\\nreceivers are often appointed to take charge of entities with\\nwhich they have had no prior involvement: imposing per-\\nsonal liability for mistakes in business judgment could dis-\\ncourage competent individuals from acting as receivers.\\nGiven the clarity and reasons supporting this standard in our\\ncaselaw—developed, to be sure, in the analogous bankruptcy\\ncontext—we conclude that the Illinois Supreme Court most\\nlikely would chart the same course as a matter of Illinois law.\\n The practical considerations warranting a heightened lia-\\nbility standard are far from fiction here. Take, for example, the\\nobservations the district court made in the underlying SEC\\nmatter. Judge Hibbler went out of his way to warn that\\n“Goulding’s obstinacy in the underlying litigation demon-\\nstrates an animosity towards the Receiver and provides fur-\\nther pause to be wary of any purported claim he might raise\\nagainst the Receiver, particularly in the absence of even a scin-\\ntilla of evidence that the Receiver acted in bad faith.” SEC v.\\nNutmeg Grp., LLC, No. 09 C 1775, 2011 WL 5042092, at *4 (N.D.\\nIll. Oct. 19, 2011). In much the same vein, Judge Hibbler ob-\\nserved that “[t]o say that Goulding has been uncooperative\\nwith the Receiver is to understate his recalcitrance.” Id.\\n In the end, we believe the Illinois Supreme Court would\\nrequire a showing that Weiss willfully and deliberately vio-\\nlated her fiduciary duties before imposing judgment for per-\\nsonal liability. Under this standard, the plaintiffs must show\\nthat Weiss intentionally took actions she knew violated her fi-\\nduciary duties. See, e.g., Petrovic v. Dep't of Employment Secu-\\nrity, 2016 IL 118562, ¶ 30–31 (defining “deliberate and willful”\\nin the context of the Illinois Unemployment Insurance Act as\\n“conscious act[s] made in violation of company rules, when\\nthe employee knows it is against the rules”); see also Levy v.\\n\\fNos. 18-1740 & 18-1791 13\\n\\nMarkal Sales Corp., 268 Ill. App. 3d 355, 380 (1st Dist. 1994)\\n(finding a “willful breach of a fiduciary duty” based on evi-\\ndence that corporate directors engaged in acts that were\\n“lacking in good faith, underhanded, deceitful and sly”).\\n Even if our prediction is mistaken, however, all agree that\\nIllinois law, at the very least, would hold Weiss to a standard\\nof gross negligence. See 805 ILCS 215/408(c). And the plain-\\ntiffs are quick to remind that this same gross negligence\\nstandard appears in the district court’s order appointing\\nWeiss as receiver in the first instance. Fair enough. It is cer-\\ntainly possible, especially as a matter of comity, that the Illi-\\nnois Supreme Court would inform its identification and defi-\\nnition of the controlling liability standard by the standard ap-\\npearing in the order appointing Weiss as receiver.\\n Under a gross negligence standard, the plaintiffs could not\\nrecover absent a showing that Weiss acted in her capacity as\\nreceiver with “reckless indifference to or deliberate disregard\\nof” her duties or that her actions were “without the bounds of\\nreason.” Sherman v. Ryan, 392 Ill. App. 3d 712, 732 (1st Dist.\\n2009) (quoting Benihana of Tokyo, Inc. v. Benihana, Inc., 891 A.2d\\n150, 192 (Del. Ch. 2005)).\\n We can stop short of staking out a more definitive position\\non the substantive liability standard, however. As our ensuing\\nanalysis shows, the district court properly determined that\\nthe record evidence required entry of summary judgment for\\nWeiss. This is so, we conclude, whether we apply the height-\\nened willful and deliberate standard or the lesser gross negli-\\ngence standard.\\n\\f14 Nos. 18-1740 & 18-1791\\n\\n III\\n The plaintiffs challenge the entry of summary judgment\\non sixteen distinct claims alleging that Weiss breached her fi-\\nduciary duties by failing to take certain actions like bringing\\nlawsuits, enforcing notes, converting debt owed to Nutmeg or\\none or another of its funds into stock, or entering into certain\\ntransactions.\\n We pause to highlight that, based on our review of the\\nbriefs, the plaintiffs do not challenge any aspect of the district\\ncourt’s rulings on the claims asserted against Barnes & Thorn-\\nburg. Accordingly, this appeal proceeds only as to the plain-\\ntiffs’ challenge to the district court’s resolution of claims\\nagainst Weiss as receiver. See Mahaffey v. Ramos, 588 F.3d 1142,\\n1146 (7th Cir. 2009) (declining to consider claims not ade-\\nquately briefed).\\n As to those claims, we review the district court’s grant of\\nsummary judgment de novo, construing all facts and drawing\\nall reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs’ favor as the non-\\nmoving party. See Van den Bosch v. Raemisch, 658 F.3d 778, 785\\n(7th Cir. 2011).\\n A\\n We begin with the plaintiffs’ claims challenging Weiss’s\\ndecisions to pursue or decline certain opportunities on behalf\\nof Nutmeg. As the plaintiffs see it, Weiss breached her fiduci-\\nary duties by failing to pursue certain litigation and by failing\\nto enforce certain judgments and promissory notes. The dis-\\ntrict court carefully considered and rejected this category of\\nclaims, and we see no error in its analysis. A few examples\\nsuffice to explain why.\\n\\fNos. 18-1740 & 18-1791 15\\n\\n Consider Count V. The plaintiffs alleged that Weiss\\nbreached her duties by failing to enforce a $2.7 million judg-\\nment held by a particular Nutmeg fund against an entity\\ncalled RMD Entertainment Group. While the plaintiffs assert\\nthat Weiss made no effort to settle or collect the judgment, the\\ndistrict court saw the facts otherwise. Instead, the court ex-\\nplained, the evidence demonstrates that Weiss investigated\\nthe collectability of the judgment by contacting RMD and\\nlearning not only that Nutmeg’s judgment may be defective,\\nbut also that RMD had no assets in the United States. But\\nWeiss did not stop at RMD’s word. She went further by con-\\nsulting a collection agency, which confirmed that RMD was\\njudgment proof. She then conveyed this information to the\\ndistrict court handling the SEC matter, explaining that she\\nhad contacted third parties to inquire about their interest in\\npurchasing the judgment but was unable to find a buyer. The\\nplaintiffs, although plainly disagreeing with Weiss’s business\\njudgment, did not show that this diligence never occurred. So,\\neven when viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs,\\nthe record shows that Weiss took steps to collect on this judg-\\nment and ultimately decided it was not worth pursuing. The\\ndistrict court was on sound footing concluding that no rea-\\nsonable jury could find that Weiss willfully or even recklessly\\nbreached her fiduciary duties.\\n Similarly, in Count XI, the plaintiffs alleged that Weiss\\nbreached her fiduciary duties by failing to follow Goulding’s\\nadvice and “d[oing] nothing” to monetize a defaulted con-\\nvertible note issued by North Bay Resources. But here, too, we\\nsee the evidence much the same way as the district court. The\\nrecord shows that Weiss contacted North Bay and explained\\nthat, based on Nutmeg’s records, she believed the firm still\\nowed on the note. North Bay disagreed, taking the position\\n\\f16 Nos. 18-1740 & 18-1791\\n\\nthat the note had been satisfied with shares issued to Nutmeg.\\nIn a sworn declaration, Weiss explained that, based on her\\ndue diligence, she made the decision not to expend further\\nresources to pursue a claim against North Bay. An informed\\ndecision not to move forward with a particular course of ac-\\ntion falls short of demonstrating a willful and deliberate (or,\\nfor that matter, a grossly negligent) violation of her duties.\\n We likewise agree with the district court that Count VII\\n(the plaintiffs’ third failure to enforce claim) and Counts X,\\nXIV, and XVI (relating to lawsuits on behalf of the Funds) fail\\nfor the same reasons. In each instance, the evidence shows\\nthat Weiss investigated the potential claims or litigation op-\\nportunities, considered the strengths and weaknesses of avail-\\nable options, and weighed the costs of pursuing certain op-\\nportunities before exercising her business judgment. The\\nplaintiffs, while vigorously disagreeing with Weiss’s deci-\\nsions, did not bring forth evidence to show that a jury could\\nfind that those decisions reflected a willful, deliberate, or\\ngrossly negligent breach of her fiduciary duties.\\n B\\n The plaintiffs also brought a series of claims (in Counts VI,\\nVIII, and XVII) alleging that Weiss breached her duties by fail-\\ning to convert debt owed to Nutmeg or to certain funds into\\nstock to be sold on the open market. Here again, though, the\\ndistrict court got it right in concluding that the record evi-\\ndence requires a contrary conclusion.\\n The plaintiffs allege three instances where, as they would\\nhave it, Weiss should have converted certain debt to stock and\\nthen liquidated the equity at a profit. For example, the plain-\\ntiffs contend that Weiss breached her duties by settling a\\n\\fNos. 18-1740 & 18-1791 17\\n\\n$50,000 note owed by an entity named GoIP Global, rather\\nthan exercising a right to convert the note to stock. Yet even if\\nwe credit the plaintiffs’ view that it was both feasible and ad-\\nvantageous for Weiss to convert the GoIP debt and sell the\\nstock, we agree with the district court that the plaintiffs’ alle-\\ngations, at most, support an inference that Weiss exercised\\npoor judgment. But a poor business decision falls well short\\nof demonstrating either a willful and deliberate or even a\\ngrossly negligent breach of her duties.\\n At a more specific level, the record shows that Weiss did\\nconvert some of the GoIP debt and tried to convert the re-\\nmainder, only to find GoIP non-responsive. She then sought,\\nreceived, and followed professional investment advice about\\nwhat to do with the remaining debt. Even viewing the facts in\\nthe plaintiffs’ strongest favor, we cannot conclude that Weiss\\ncame anywhere close to willfully, deliberately, or even negli-\\ngently offending her fiduciary obligations: she retained—and\\nsought guidance from—an investment advisory firm, and\\nwhen faced with two choices, she chose the option advised by\\nthe firm. Absent from the record are facts showing that Weiss\\nintended to harm the Funds by settling the GoIP debt rather\\nthan undertaking conversion and liquidation transactions.\\nAnd the record shows the same level of diligence as to the\\nfacts underlying the allegations in Counts VIII and XVII.\\n C\\n The plaintiffs also devote substantial attention to three\\nspecific claims against the receiver. Once again, though, the\\ndistrict court properly saw no genuine issue of material fact\\npertinent to these claims.\\n\\f18 Nos. 18-1740 & 18-1791\\n\\n First, in Count IV, the plaintiffs allege that Weiss breached\\nher fiduciary duties by failing to receive court approval to pay\\nany fees exceeding a $150,000 cap imposed by the district\\ncourt to Crowe Horwath, the accounting firm that advised her\\nin the execution of her receivership responsibilities. While it\\nis undisputed that Weiss incurred $168,000 in advisory fees\\nbeyond the cap, we agree with the district court that no rea-\\nsonable jury could find that her doing so reflected an inten-\\ntional breach of her fiduciary duties. The court handling the\\nSEC matter appointed Crowe Horwath before Weiss became\\nreceiver and explicitly authorized her to continue using the\\nfirm. The record also shows that Crowe Horwath estimated\\nits fees at $168,000 to complete its outstanding work. Weiss\\nshared this information with the district court and kept the\\ncourt informed of what Crowe Horwath was doing, why the\\nwork was needed, and how much it would cost. She also\\nheeded the court’s instruction to take a “conservative ap-\\nproach” by submitting payment requests in installments as\\nCrowe performed its work. While it is clear that the plaintiffs\\nbelieve Crowe Horwath’s work was unnecessary, what is\\nmissing is evidence showing that Weiss’s continued use of\\nCrowe’s services reflected a willful, deliberate, or grossly neg-\\nligent flouting of the district court’s directions or her fiduciary\\nduties. Indeed, neither the district court overseeing the SEC\\nmatter nor the Commission itself took issue with Weiss’s han-\\ndling of the additional payments for Crowe Horwath’s ser-\\nvices.\\n Second, in Count IX, the plaintiffs allege that Weiss\\nbreached her fiduciary duties by terminating a transaction\\nthat would have enabled Inverso Corp., a corporate shell\\nowned by several Nutmeg funds, to be used as a vehicle for\\nan initial public offering. Notably, however, in the SEC’s\\n\\fNos. 18-1740 & 18-1791 19\\n\\nmotion to appoint Weiss as receiver, the Commission flagged\\nthe Inverso deal and directed Weiss to review it. Upon doing\\nso Weiss chose to halt the transaction because it “reeked of a\\nscam.” In her sworn declarations, Weiss provided a detailed\\nexplanation of why she did not approve the transaction: she\\nquestioned its legitimacy and determined the business plan\\nwas implausible because, among other things, it projected In-\\nverso would gain 5% of the global market share for multiple\\nsclerosis treatment in just two years and 5% of global cancer\\ntreatment revenues in just four years with a budget of only a\\nfew million dollars. No evidence suggests Weiss formed these\\nviews on a whim or held them in willful or deliberate (or\\ngrossly negligent) disregard of her duties as receiver.\\n Third, Count XIX alleged that Weiss breached her fiduciary\\nduties by expending attorneys’ fees on a frivolous motion to\\nshow cause. In April 2010, in the SEC matter, Weiss filed a mo-\\ntion for an order to show cause against Goulding for his fail-\\nure to cooperate with her. She pointed to 11 different in-\\nstances of his noncooperation, one of which involved locating\\nevidence of investor approval to modify the operating agree-\\nment for the Nutmeg/Mercury LLP Fund. As it turned out,\\nhowever, Weiss already had the relevant documents in the\\nfiles seized from Nutmeg. Goulding reacted to learning of this\\nmistake by urging the district court in the SEC case to sanction\\nWeiss. The district court denied the motion, explaining that\\nthere was “no evidence of an intentional fraud, concealment\\nor conspiracy” on Weiss’s part and because “there [was] no\\nsuggestion that all of the other issues raised in the [r]eceiver’s\\nmotion also were without merit.” We see no error with this\\nconclusion.\\n\\f20 Nos. 18-1740 & 18-1791\\n\\n IV\\n The plaintiffs’ amended complaints and arguments on ap-\\npeal are expansive. Based upon our review of the record and\\nthe parties’ briefs, we have focused only on those claims that\\nwe believe warrant discussion. But our ultimate conclusion—\\nthat no reasonable jury could find that Weiss engaged in a\\nwillful, deliberate, or even grossly negligent breach of a fidu-\\nciary duty—applies with equal force to the totality of the\\nplaintiffs’ claims on appeal. For these reasons, we AFFIRM.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3795,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4645918,"string":"4,645,918"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Patrick Doherty v. FDIC"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-08-06"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-3133"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before FLAUM, KANNE, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"Michael Stephen Kanne\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-3133\\nPATRICK J. DOHERTY,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n v.\\n\\nFEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, as receiver for\\nWASHINGTON FEDERAL BANK FOR SAVINGS, et al.,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 18 CV 703 — Joan B. Gottschall, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED MAY 14, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 6, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before FLAUM, KANNE, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.\\n KANNE, Circuit Judge. Washington Federal Bank brought a\\ndefault action against Patrick Doherty, John Farano, Jr., and\\nWorth Conversion, LLC, for notes related to various real es-\\ntate ventures. Doherty raised affirmative defenses on behalf\\nof himself and Worth, but the bank dismissed Doherty and\\nWorth from the action, without prejudice, after obtaining a\\ndefault judgment against Farano. Doherty then attempted to\\n\\f2 No. 18-3133\\n\\nbring this suit against the bank with claims founded on simi-\\nlar grounds as his previously-raised affirmative defenses. But\\nthe Cook County Circuit Court determined that Doherty’s\\nclaims were barred by res judicata thanks to the default judg-\\nment entered against Farano. Doherty appealed to the Illinois\\nAppellate Court, but before his appeal was heard, Washing-\\nton Federal was placed into the Federal Deposit Insurance\\nCorporation’s receivership. The FDIC removed this action to\\nthe district court, which adopted the Illinois Circuit Court’s\\ndecision. Because res judicata does not bar Doherty’s claims,\\nwe vacate and remand for further proceedings.\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n Patrick Doherty and John Farano, Jr., formed Worth Con-\\nversion, LLC. In April 2006, Washington Federal Bank (“the\\nbank”) loaned Worth $400,000 in exchange for Worth’s prom-\\nissory note and Doherty and Farano’s personal guaranties of\\nthe loan. Washington Federal extended the maturity date of\\nthe loan multiple times, but Worth eventually defaulted. The\\nbank subsequently sued Worth, Farano, and Doherty in Cook\\nCounty Circuit Court in March 2014 (the guaranty action).\\nThe twenty-seven count complaint also included counts re-\\nlated to other loans made to another entity affiliated with\\nFarano and Doherty, F & D Services, Inc. But the bank even-\\ntually dismissed those counts and F & D Services from the\\nsuit.\\n Doherty is an attorney and he filed an appearance in the\\nguaranty action on behalf of himself and Worth. In his answer\\nto the bank’s complaint, Doherty raised affirmative defenses,\\nincluding that the bank extended the maturity date of the loan\\n\\fNo. 18-3133 3\\n\\nwithout authorization, that the bank charged fees and an in-\\nterest rate not agreed upon, and that the bank charged exces-\\nsive fees.\\n Farano never appeared, however, and the trial court en-\\ntered a default judgment for the loan balance against Farano\\nfor Count XXVI, which sought judgment on his personal\\nguaranty of the loan, on August 27, 2014. The default judg-\\nment ordered:\\n 1. [Washington Federal’s] Motion for Default and\\n Judgment is granted; 2. [The bank] has proven the\\n damages it incurred and reasonable attorney’s fees\\n and costs; 3. Judgment is entered in favor of [the\\n bank] and against Defendant John Farano Jr., in the\\n TOTAL AMOUNT of $228,739.81 due under the\\n Note; $2,804.50 due in attorney fees and $485.33 in\\n legal costs; 4. There is no just reason to delay the en-\\n forcement of the judgment, appeal, or both.\\n On April 27, 2015, Doherty received a report from a foren-\\nsic document examiner opining that his signature had been\\nforged on loan extension paperwork in 2010. Doherty sent a\\ncopy of the report to the bank’s counsel, advising them that\\nhe intended to file a suit for fraud and other claims. Around\\nthat time, the bank moved the trial court to dismiss its claims\\nagainst Worth and Doherty from the action without preju-\\ndice. The trial court dismissed the bank’s remaining counts\\n(XXV—seeking judgment against Worth on default; and\\nXXVII—seeking judgment against Doherty on his guaranty of\\nthe Worth loan) on June 15, 2015. Doherty did not object to\\nthis order.\\n Over a year later, on June 28, 2016, Doherty filed suit\\nagainst the bank, its president, its corporate secretary, and its\\n\\f4 No. 18-3133\\n\\nattorneys, alleging breach of contract, forgery, excessive fees,\\nfraud, and legal malpractice against the bank’s law firm. He\\nclaimed that during the first trial (the guaranty action), he did\\nnot learn of the bank’s alleged forgery early enough to take\\naction before being dismissed. His suit sought to recover\\ndamages for the fees he incurred defending the guaranty ac-\\ntion. The trial court dismissed Doherty’s complaint, and he\\nfiled an amended complaint alleging the same facts and\\ncounts, but he alleged malicious prosecution instead of mal-\\npractice against the bank’s legal counsel.\\n The bank and its attorneys moved to dismiss Doherty’s\\namended complaint on the grounds of res judicata, lack of\\nstanding, and (on the malicious prosecution count) failure to\\nstate a claim. The trial court dismissed Doherty’s suit, holding\\nthat most of Doherty’s claims were barred by res judicata be-\\ncause he should have brought them in the guaranty action.\\nThe trial court also determined that he failed to state a claim\\nfor malicious prosecution. Doherty appealed to the Illinois\\nAppellate Court. Before the court heard Doherty’s appeal,\\nhowever, Washington Federal was placed into the FDIC’s re-\\nceivership. The FDIC removed this action to the Northern\\nDistrict of Illinois under 12 U.S.C. § 1819(b)(2)(B).\\n II. ANALYSIS\\n The district court adopted the Illinois trial court’s ruling as\\nits own. We therefore review the Illinois trial court’s decision\\nand analyze this appeal under Illinois law. Baek v. Clausen, 886\\nF.3d 652, 660 (7th Cir. 2018). On appeal, Doherty claims that\\nthe trial court erroneously dismissed his claims on the basis\\nof res judicata. His main point seems to be that the bank’s use\\nof Farano’s default judgment to defeat Doherty’s claims trans-\\nformed res judicata from a shield into a sword. In other words,\\n\\fNo. 18-3133 5\\n\\nby holding that Doherty’s claims were barred, the district\\ncourt effectively allowed the bank to kill Doherty’s fraud\\nclaims. The bank argues that the trial court correctly deter-\\nmined that res judicata barred Doherty’s claims, but even if it\\ndoes not, Doherty’s claims should be alternatively dismissed\\nfor failure to state a claim.\\n “Whether a claim is barred by res judicata is a question of\\nlaw that we review de novo.” Curtis v. Lofy, 914 N.E.2d 248, 254\\n(Ill. App. Ct. 2009). “The party asserting res judicata as a pre-\\nclusion to the second action bears the burden of showing with\\nclarity and certainty what was determined by the prior judg-\\nment.” BankFinancial, FSB v. Tandon, 2013 IL App (1st) 113152,\\n¶ 19.\\n A. Counterclaims and Affirmative Defenses in Illinois Civil\\n Procedure\\n A brief primer on Illinois civil procedure will help clarify\\nthe nature of Doherty’s argument. The Illinois rules provide\\nthat a “plaintiff may, at any time before trial or hearing be-\\ngins, upon notice to each party who has appeared or each\\nsuch party’s attorney, and upon payment of costs, dismiss his\\nor her action or any part thereof as to any defendant, without\\nprejudice, by order filed in the cause.” 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/2-\\n1009(a). “[A] dismissal ‘without prejudice’ signals that there\\nwas no final decision on the merits and that the plaintiff is not\\nbarred from refiling the action.” Richter v. Prairie Farms Dairy,\\nInc., 2016 IL 119518, ¶ 24. The rule also stipulates that a plain-\\ntiff’s dismissal of its claims against a defendant “does not dis-\\nmiss a pending counterclaim or third party complaint.” 735\\nIll. Comp. Stat. 5/2-1009(d). Illinois courts have held that a vol-\\nuntary dismissal by the plaintiff is an appealable order. Du-\\nbina v. Mesirow Realty Dev., Inc., 687 N.E.2d 871, 874–75 (Ill.\\n\\f6 No. 18-3133\\n\\n1997) (a voluntary dismissal terminates an action in its en-\\ntirety and renders all final orders immediately appealable).\\n Doherty’s claims were styled as affirmative defenses, not\\nas counterclaims. That was probably because, under Illinois\\ncivil procedure, a defendant must raise affirmative defenses in\\nthe answer or reply. See 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/2-613(d). Con-\\nversely, counterclaims are permissive in Illinois and can be\\nbrought in their own action. See 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/2-608.\\nSee Laue v. Leifheit, 473 N.E.2d 939, 943 (Ill. 1984) (describing\\nthat section 2–608’s language should be construed as estab-\\nlishing permissive counterclaims).\\n B. Res judicata in Illinois\\n “The doctrine of res judicata bars the refiling of an action\\npreviously adjudicated on the merits when the action is di-\\nrected against the same parties and involves the same claims.”\\nDeLuna v. Treister, 708 N.E.2d 340, 344 (Ill. 1999) (citing Rein v.\\nDavid A. Noyes & Co., 665 N.E.2d 1199, 1204 (Ill. 1996)). “Res\\njudicata promotes judicial economy by preventing repetitive\\nlitigation and [additionally] protects parties from being\\nforced to bear the unjust burden of relitigating essentially the\\nsame case.” Piagentini v. Ford Motor Co., 901 N.E.2d 986, 990–\\n91 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009) (quoting Arvia v. Madigan, 809 N.E.2d\\n88, 97 (Ill. 2004) (alteration in original)).\\n There are three requirements for res judicata in Illinois: “(1)\\na final judgment on the merits … entered in the first lawsuit\\nby a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) an identity of causes\\nof action exists; (3) the parties or their privies are identical in\\nboth lawsuits.” DeLuna, 708 N.E.2d at 344. “The requirement\\nof a final order or judgment is a ‘critical’ component in show-\\ning the applicability of res judicata.” Richter, 2016 IL 119518 at\\n\\fNo. 18-3133 7\\n\\n¶ 22 (citing Hernandez v. Pritikin, 2012 IL 113054, ¶ 41). And\\nthe Supreme Court of Illinois has explained that “default\\njudgments are always res judicata on the ultimate claim or de-\\nmand presented in the complaint.” Hous. Auth. for La Salle Cty.\\nv. Young Menʹs Christian Assʹn of Ottawa, 461 N.E.2d 959, 963\\n(Ill. 1984).\\n Illinois courts have applied res judicata broadly. “The doc-\\ntrine extends not only to what was actually decided in the\\noriginal action, but also to matters which could have been de-\\ncided in that suit.” Doe v. Gleicher, 911 N.E.2d 532, 537 (Ill. App.\\nCt. 2009) (quoting Rein, 665 N.E.2d at 1204). However,\\n“[e]quity dictates that the doctrine of res judicata will not be\\ntechnically applied if to do so would create inequitable and\\nunjust results. [It] should not be applied … where it would be\\nfundamentally unfair to do so … [and] should only be applied\\nas fairness and justice require.” Piagentini, 901 N.E.2d at 990–\\n91 (citations and quotations omitted). “Although it is recom-\\nmended that the doctrine receive a liberal construction and\\nshould be applied without technical restrictions, it has also\\nbeen recommended that the doctrine should not be applied so\\nrigidly as to defeat the ends of justice.” Fed. Signal Corp. v. SLC\\nTechs., Inc., 743 N.E.2d 1066, 1077 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001) (quoting\\nThornton v. Williams, 412 N.E.2d 157, 159 (Ill. App. Ct. 1980)).\\n C. Doherty’s Claims\\n The Illinois circuit court determined that res judicata\\napplied because the default judgment against Farano\\nconstituted a final judgment on the merits. It stated that\\nidentity of parties existed because the bank named Doherty\\nas a defendant in the guaranty action, and because the bank\\nwas originally the plaintiff in the guaranty action (and the\\nother named defendants were its agents and attorneys). The\\n\\f8 No. 18-3133\\n\\ntrial court determined that identity of causes existed because\\nDoherty raised his affirmative defenses in the guaranty\\naction, and the same underlying facts supporting his\\naffirmative defenses provided the basis for his claims in the\\nlater lawsuit against the bank and its attorneys.\\n The circuit court’s opinion relied on Corcoran-Hakala v.\\nDowd to establish that res judicata bars Doherty’s claims. See\\n840 N.E.2d 286, 293–94 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). In that case, the\\nIllinois Appellate Court explained that the common law\\nprinciple of compulsory counterclaim applies in some\\ninstances in Illinois, even though the statutorily-established\\nrules of civil procedure explicitly hold that counterclaims are\\npermissive: “res judicata bars a subsequent action if successful\\nprosecution of that action would in effect nullify the judgment\\nentered in the initial action.” Id. at 294 (citing Restatement\\n(Second) of Judgments § 22(2)(b) (1982)); Carey v. Neal, Cortina\\n& Associates, 576 N.E.2d 220, 225 (Ill. App. Ct. 1991)\\n(describing subsection 22(2)(b) of the Restatement as a\\n“common law rule of compulsory counterclaim”). This is true\\nif “the defendant’s claim involves the same operative facts as\\nthe plaintiff’s claim.” Id. at 293–94 (citing Torcasso v. Standard\\nOutdoor Sales, Inc., 597 N.E.2d 772, 775 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992),\\nrevʹd on other grounds, 626 N.E.2d 225 (Ill. 1993)).\\n We conclude that res judicata should not apply in this case\\nfor two main reasons. First, none of the Illinois cases relied on\\nby the circuit court or the FDIC address a situation like this\\none. And the most illuminating cases—if not exactly square\\nwith the posture of this case—suggest that applying the\\ndoctrine would be inappropriate. Second, applying the\\ndoctrine in this situation neither advances the purposes of res\\n\\fNo. 18-3133 9\\n\\njudicata nor meaningfully serves the interests of judicial\\neconomy.\\n Illinois case law does not support an application of the\\ndoctrine in these circumstances. Two wrinkles in this case\\ncomplicate the typical res judicata analysis and lead us to\\nconclude that the doctrine should not apply here. First, most\\nof the cases addressing res judicata in Illinois involve a\\nsituation in which a plaintiff in the first action attempts to\\nbring the same or similar claims in a later action—not a\\nsituation in which a defendant to the first action brings\\naffirmative defenses as independent claims in the second\\naction. Second, the default judgment applied to a different\\ndefendant.1\\n The FDIC responds to Doherty’s arguments on appeal by\\ndirecting our attention to the broad and liberal application of\\nres judicata found throughout Illinois case law. Doherty\\nargues that because the circuit court dismissed him without\\nprejudice on the bank’s section 2-1009 motion in the guaranty\\naction, res judicata should therefore not apply. The FDIC relies\\non Rein for the proposition that even though the final\\njudgment on the merits did not apply to all the claims in the\\nguaranty action, res judicata still applies. But Rein involved a\\ncase where, in the first action, plaintiffs received a dismissal\\nwith prejudice on some of their claims and voluntarily\\ndismissed their remaining claims pursuant to section 2-1009.\\n665 N.E.2d at 1205. They later re-filed those claims in a second\\n\\n 1 The FDIC does give examples of cases in which a defendant in the\\nfirst action attempts to bring claims that would have been suitable for an\\naffirmative defense in a later action, but this second factor distinguishes\\nthem. See, e.g., Henry v. Farmer City State Bank, 808 F.2d 1228, 1235 (7th Cir.\\n1986).\\n\\f10 No. 18-3133\\n\\naction, engaging in the classic claim-splitting that res judicata\\nattempts to prevent. Id. at 1206. Here, Doherty neither made\\na section 2-1009 motion nor had a final judgment that\\naddressed any of the bank’s claims as they pertained to him\\nor his defenses.\\n And although we have found no case that directly applies\\nto this situation, a string of Illinois cases leads us to conclude\\nthat the doctrine should not apply here. “The Illinois Supreme\\nCourt has held that if the basis of dismissal against one party\\nbears no relationship to the merits of the case, it is\\n‘inappropriate to apply the doctrine of res judicata [against]\\nanother party to the action.’” Curtis, 914 N.E.2d at 260\\n(quoting Downing v. Chicago Transit Auth,, 642 N.E.2d 456, 460\\n(Ill. 1994)). In Downing the Supreme Court of Illinois held that\\nan order that granted summary judgment in favor of an\\nemployee on statute-of-limitations grounds did not preclude\\na later suit based on a respondeat superior theory against his\\nemployer because the summary judgment order was not\\nbased on the merits of the case. According to the court, to label\\na summary judgment order based on the statute of limitations\\nas “an adjudication on the merits would be the quintessential\\nact of exalting form over substance.” 642 N.E.2d at 460.\\n Similarly, in DeLuna v. Treister, the court refused to apply\\nres judicata in a medical malpractice case for a defendant\\nhospital after its doctor obtained an involuntary dismissal\\ndue to the plaintiff’s failure to meet statutory pleading\\nrequirements. 708 N.E.2d at 348–49. The involuntary\\ndismissal with prejudice barred the plaintiff’s subsequent\\naction against the doctor, but not the hospital. Id.\\n In Leow v. A & B Freight Line, Inc., the court addressed the\\nproper interpretation of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 273,\\n\\fNo. 18-3133 11\\n\\nwhich explains the effects of involuntary dismissals. 676\\nN.E.2d 1284, 1286 (Ill. 1997). The court determined that an\\ninvoluntary dismissal against a different party acted as an\\nadjudication on the merits against another party only where\\n“the prior dismissal must have caused the defendant to\\nprepare to address the actual merits of plaintiff’s claim.”\\nDeLuna, 708 N.E.2d at 347 (quotations omitted). See Leow, 676\\nN.E.2d at 1288.\\n The FDIC attempts to distinguish these cases because this\\ncase involves neither involuntary dismissal nor vicarious lia-\\nbility for employers. And, as we have noted, default judg-\\nments are typically considered final judgments on the merits\\nfor the purposes of res judicata. Hous. Auth. for La Salle Cty., 461\\nN.E.2d at 963.\\n But we believe the principles of equity underlying this\\nstring of cases may be applied here. In the guaranty action,\\nDoherty appeared, filed a response, and raised his affirmative\\ndefenses against the bank’s claims. After obtaining its default\\njudgment against Farano—and shortly after Doherty received\\nthe handwriting expert’s report and threatened to bring a suit\\nfor fraud—the bank dropped its claims against Worth and\\nDoherty and dismissed those defendants without prejudice.\\nThis posture ensured that the bank never had to address or\\ndefend itself against Doherty’s fraud allegations.\\nAccordingly, because the bank never had to address (and the\\ncircuit court likewise never had to consider) Doherty’s fraud\\nclaims, we do not believe the default judgment against a\\ndifferent defendant barred Doherty’s later action.\\n Applying res judicata in this situation also does not\\nadvance the purposes of the doctrine. One of those purposes\\nis to prevent a second litigation from undermining the prior\\n\\f12 No. 18-3133\\n\\njudgment. See Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 22(2)(b)\\n(1982) (explaining that a defendant who fails to interpose a\\npermissible counterclaim in an action is precluded from\\nbringing a subsequent action on that claim if the claim’s\\nsuccessful prosecution “would nullify the initial judgment or\\nwould impair rights established in the initial action”). The\\nFDIC argues that if Doherty were to succeed on his claims of\\nfraud, it could undermine the circuit court’s conclusion that\\nWorth owed money to the bank and that Farano defaulted on\\nhis personal guaranty of the Worth loan. We find that\\nargument unpersuasive. The FDIC provides no explanation\\nfor how Doherty would have standing to challenge Farano’s\\ndefault judgment. And at oral argument, Doherty himself\\neven conceded that he likely has no standing to challenge the\\ndefault judgment against Farano.\\n Additionally, Doherty’s action here seeks redress for the\\nbank’s alleged fraud but does not challenge the default\\njudgment entered against Farano. Even if Doherty manages\\nto prosecute this action successfully, the default judgment\\nagainst Farano would go undisturbed. Therefore, the bank’s\\ninterest in the previous litigation—its judgment against\\nFarano—would remain in place.\\n Similarly, as explained above, preventing claim splitting\\nserves as one of the ends of applying res judicata. However,\\nthat concern is not implicated in a case like this, where\\nDoherty was a defendant and did not dismiss the first action\\nhimself. See Rein, 665 N.E.2d at 1206 (“[P]laintiffs generally\\nare not permitted to split their causes of action. The rule\\nagainst claim-splitting, which is an aspect of the law of\\npreclusion, prohibits a plaintiff from suing for part of a claim\\n\\fNo. 18-3133 13\\n\\nin one action and then suing for the remainder in another\\naction.”).\\n Nor are concerns about judicial economy implicated by\\nallowing Doherty’s claims to proceed. In this case the circuit\\ncourt never considered or weighed in on Doherty’s fraud\\nclaims because the bank dismissed him without prejudice.\\nThe bank never had to litigate these claims in the guaranty\\naction—addressing them now will not force the bank into\\nredundant litigation.\\n Lastly, the FDIC encourages us to affirm the circuit court’s\\ndismissal of Doherty’s claims on the alternative grounds that\\nhis complaint fails to state a claim. Because neither the Illinois\\ntrial court nor the district court have engaged Doherty’s\\narguments, we decline to do so now. The district court should\\nhave the first opportunity to consider that question.\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n Based on the foregoing, the circuit court incorrectly deter-\\nmined that Doherty’s claims were barred by res judicata. Ac-\\ncordingly, we REVERSE the district court’s dismissal of\\nDoherty’s claims and REMAND for further proceedings.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4423171/\", \"author_raw\": \"Michael Stephen Kanne\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"FLAUM"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"KANNE"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"SCUDDER"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"FLAUM\": \", Circuit\", \"KANNE\": \", Circuit\", \"SCUDDER\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645918/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":8,"string":"8"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Patrick Doherty v. FDIC\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-08-06\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-3133\nPATRICK J. DOHERTY,\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\n v.\n\nFEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, as receiver for\nWASHINGTON FEDERAL BANK FOR SAVINGS, et al.,\n Defendants-Appellees.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\n No. 18 CV 703 — Joan B. Gottschall, Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED MAY 14, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 6, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before FLAUM, KANNE, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.\n KANNE, Circuit Judge. Washington Federal Bank brought a\ndefault action against Patrick Doherty, John Farano, Jr., and\nWorth Conversion, LLC, for notes related to various real es-\ntate ventures. Doherty raised affirmative defenses on behalf\nof himself and Worth, but the bank dismissed Doherty and\nWorth from the action, without prejudice, after obtaining a\ndefault judgment against Farano. Doherty then attempted to\n\f2 No. 18-3133\n\nbring this suit against the bank with claims founded on simi-\nlar grounds as his previously-raised affirmative defenses. But\nthe Cook County Circuit Court determined that Doherty’s\nclaims were barred by res judicata thanks to the default judg-\nment entered against Farano. Doherty appealed to the Illinois\nAppellate Court, but before his appeal was heard, Washing-\nton Federal was placed into the Federal Deposit Insurance\nCorporation’s receivership. The FDIC removed this action to\nthe district court, which adopted the Illinois Circuit Court’s\ndecision. Because res judicata does not bar Doherty’s claims,\nwe vacate and remand for further proceedings.\n I. BACKGROUND\n Patrick Doherty and John Farano, Jr., formed Worth Con-\nversion, LLC. In April 2006, Washington Federal Bank (“the\nbank”) loaned Worth $400,000 in exchange for Worth’s prom-\nissory note and Doherty and Farano’s personal guaranties of\nthe loan. Washington Federal extended the maturity date of\nthe loan multiple times, but Worth eventually defaulted. The\nbank subsequently sued Worth, Farano, and Doherty in Cook\nCounty Circuit Court in March 2014 (the guaranty action).\nThe twenty-seven count complaint also included counts re-\nlated to other loans made to another entity affiliated with\nFarano and Doherty, F & D Services, Inc. But the bank even-\ntually dismissed those counts and F & D Services from the\nsuit.\n Doherty is an attorney and he filed an appearance in the\nguaranty action on behalf of himself and Worth. In his answer\nto the bank’s complaint, Doherty raised affirmative defenses,\nincluding that the bank extended the maturity date of the loan\n\fNo. 18-3133 3\n\nwithout authorization, that the bank charged fees and an in-\nterest rate not agreed upon, and that the bank charged exces-\nsive fees.\n Farano never appeared, however, and the trial court en-\ntered a default judgment for the loan balance against Farano\nfor Count XXVI, which sought judgment on his personal\nguaranty of the loan, on August 27, 2014. The default judg-\nment ordered:\n 1. [Washington Federal’s] Motion for Default and\n Judgment is granted; 2. [The bank] has proven the\n damages it incurred and reasonable attorney’s fees\n and costs; 3. Judgment is entered in favor of [the\n bank] and against Defendant John Farano Jr., in the\n TOTAL AMOUNT of $228,739.81 due under the\n Note; $2,804.50 due in attorney fees and $485.33 in\n legal costs; 4. There is no just reason to delay the en-\n forcement of the judgment, appeal, or both.\n On April 27, 2015, Doherty received a report from a foren-\nsic document examiner opining that his signature had been\nforged on loan extension paperwork in 2010. Doherty sent a\ncopy of the report to the bank’s counsel, advising them that\nhe intended to file a suit for fraud and other claims. Around\nthat time, the bank moved the trial court to dismiss its claims\nagainst Worth and Doherty from the action without preju-\ndice. The trial court dismissed the bank’s remaining counts\n(XXV—seeking judgment against Worth on default; and\nXXVII—seeking judgment against Doherty on his guaranty of\nthe Worth loan) on June 15, 2015. Doherty did not object to\nthis order.\n Over a year later, on June 28, 2016, Doherty filed suit\nagainst the bank, its president, its corporate secretary, and its\n\f4 No. 18-3133\n\nattorneys, alleging breach of contract, forgery, excessive fees,\nfraud, and legal malpractice against the bank’s law firm. He\nclaimed that during the first trial (the guaranty action), he did\nnot learn of the bank’s alleged forgery early enough to take\naction before being dismissed. His suit sought to recover\ndamages for the fees he incurred defending the guaranty ac-\ntion. The trial court dismissed Doherty’s complaint, and he\nfiled an amended complaint alleging the same facts and\ncounts, but he alleged malicious prosecution instead of mal-\npractice against the bank’s legal counsel.\n The bank and its attorneys moved to dismiss Doherty’s\namended complaint on the grounds of res judicata, lack of\nstanding, and (on the malicious prosecution count) failure to\nstate a claim. The trial court dismissed Doherty’s suit, holding\nthat most of Doherty’s claims were barred by res judicata be-\ncause he should have brought them in the guaranty action.\nThe trial court also determined that he failed to state a claim\nfor malicious prosecution. Doherty appealed to the Illinois\nAppellate Court. Before the court heard Doherty’s appeal,\nhowever, Washington Federal was placed into the FDIC’s re-\nceivership. The FDIC removed this action to the Northern\nDistrict of Illinois under 12 U.S.C. § 1819(b)(2)(B).\n II. ANALYSIS\n The district court adopted the Illinois trial court’s ruling as\nits own. We therefore review the Illinois trial court’s decision\nand analyze this appeal under Illinois law. Baek v. Clausen, 886\nF.3d 652, 660 (7th Cir. 2018). On appeal, Doherty claims that\nthe trial court erroneously dismissed his claims on the basis\nof res judicata. His main point seems to be that the bank’s use\nof Farano’s default judgment to defeat Doherty’s claims trans-\nformed res judicata from a shield into a sword. In other words,\n\fNo. 18-3133 5\n\nby holding that Doherty’s claims were barred, the district\ncourt effectively allowed the bank to kill Doherty’s fraud\nclaims. The bank argues that the trial court correctly deter-\nmined that res judicata barred Doherty’s claims, but even if it\ndoes not, Doherty’s claims should be alternatively dismissed\nfor failure to state a claim.\n “Whether a claim is barred by res judicata is a question of\nlaw that we review de novo.” Curtis v. Lofy, 914 N.E.2d 248, 254\n(Ill. App. Ct. 2009). “The party asserting res judicata as a pre-\nclusion to the second action bears the burden of showing with\nclarity and certainty what was determined by the prior judg-\nment.” BankFinancial, FSB v. Tandon, 2013 IL App (1st) 113152,\n¶ 19.\n A. Counterclaims and Affirmative Defenses in Illinois Civil\n Procedure\n A brief primer on Illinois civil procedure will help clarify\nthe nature of Doherty’s argument. The Illinois rules provide\nthat a “plaintiff may, at any time before trial or hearing be-\ngins, upon notice to each party who has appeared or each\nsuch party’s attorney, and upon payment of costs, dismiss his\nor her action or any part thereof as to any defendant, without\nprejudice, by order filed in the cause.” 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/2-\n1009(a). “[A] dismissal ‘without prejudice’ signals that there\nwas no final decision on the merits and that the plaintiff is not\nbarred from refiling the action.” Richter v. Prairie Farms Dairy,\nInc., 2016 IL 119518, ¶ 24. The rule also stipulates that a plain-\ntiff’s dismissal of its claims against a defendant “does not dis-\nmiss a pending counterclaim or third party complaint.” 735\nIll. Comp. Stat. 5/2-1009(d). Illinois courts have held that a vol-\nuntary dismissal by the plaintiff is an appealable order. Du-\nbina v. Mesirow Realty Dev., Inc., 687 N.E.2d 871, 874–75 (Ill.\n\f6 No. 18-3133\n\n1997) (a voluntary dismissal terminates an action in its en-\ntirety and renders all final orders immediately appealable).\n Doherty’s claims were styled as affirmative defenses, not\nas counterclaims. That was probably because, under Illinois\ncivil procedure, a defendant must raise affirmative defenses in\nthe answer or reply. See 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/2-613(d). Con-\nversely, counterclaims are permissive in Illinois and can be\nbrought in their own action. See 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/2-608.\nSee Laue v. Leifheit, 473 N.E.2d 939, 943 (Ill. 1984) (describing\nthat section 2–608’s language should be construed as estab-\nlishing permissive counterclaims).\n B. Res judicata in Illinois\n “The doctrine of res judicata bars the refiling of an action\npreviously adjudicated on the merits when the action is di-\nrected against the same parties and involves the same claims.”\nDeLuna v. Treister, 708 N.E.2d 340, 344 (Ill. 1999) (citing Rein v.\nDavid A. Noyes & Co., 665 N.E.2d 1199, 1204 (Ill. 1996)). “Res\njudicata promotes judicial economy by preventing repetitive\nlitigation and [additionally] protects parties from being\nforced to bear the unjust burden of relitigating essentially the\nsame case.” Piagentini v. Ford Motor Co., 901 N.E.2d 986, 990–\n91 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009) (quoting Arvia v. Madigan, 809 N.E.2d\n88, 97 (Ill. 2004) (alteration in original)).\n There are three requirements for res judicata in Illinois: “(1)\na final judgment on the merits … entered in the first lawsuit\nby a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) an identity of causes\nof action exists; (3) the parties or their privies are identical in\nboth lawsuits.” DeLuna, 708 N.E.2d at 344. “The requirement\nof a final order or judgment is a ‘critical’ component in show-\ning the applicability of res judicata.” Richter, 2016 IL 119518 at\n\fNo. 18-3133 7\n\n¶ 22 (citing Hernandez v. Pritikin, 2012 IL 113054, ¶ 41). And\nthe Supreme Court of Illinois has explained that “default\njudgments are always res judicata on the ultimate claim or de-\nmand presented in the complaint.” Hous. Auth. for La Salle Cty.\nv. Young Menʹs Christian Assʹn of Ottawa, 461 N.E.2d 959, 963\n(Ill. 1984).\n Illinois courts have applied res judicata broadly. “The doc-\ntrine extends not only to what was actually decided in the\noriginal action, but also to matters which could have been de-\ncided in that suit.” Doe v. Gleicher, 911 N.E.2d 532, 537 (Ill. App.\nCt. 2009) (quoting Rein, 665 N.E.2d at 1204). However,\n“[e]quity dictates that the doctrine of res judicata will not be\ntechnically applied if to do so would create inequitable and\nunjust results. [It] should not be applied … where it would be\nfundamentally unfair to do so … [and] should only be applied\nas fairness and justice require.” Piagentini, 901 N.E.2d at 990–\n91 (citations and quotations omitted). “Although it is recom-\nmended that the doctrine receive a liberal construction and\nshould be applied without technical restrictions, it has also\nbeen recommended that the doctrine should not be applied so\nrigidly as to defeat the ends of justice.” Fed. Signal Corp. v. SLC\nTechs., Inc., 743 N.E.2d 1066, 1077 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001) (quoting\nThornton v. Williams, 412 N.E.2d 157, 159 (Ill. App. Ct. 1980)).\n C. Doherty’s Claims\n The Illinois circuit court determined that res judicata\napplied because the default judgment against Farano\nconstituted a final judgment on the merits. It stated that\nidentity of parties existed because the bank named Doherty\nas a defendant in the guaranty action, and because the bank\nwas originally the plaintiff in the guaranty action (and the\nother named defendants were its agents and attorneys). The\n\f8 No. 18-3133\n\ntrial court determined that identity of causes existed because\nDoherty raised his affirmative defenses in the guaranty\naction, and the same underlying facts supporting his\naffirmative defenses provided the basis for his claims in the\nlater lawsuit against the bank and its attorneys.\n The circuit court’s opinion relied on Corcoran-Hakala v.\nDowd to establish that res judicata bars Doherty’s claims. See\n840 N.E.2d 286, 293–94 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). In that case, the\nIllinois Appellate Court explained that the common law\nprinciple of compulsory counterclaim applies in some\ninstances in Illinois, even though the statutorily-established\nrules of civil procedure explicitly hold that counterclaims are\npermissive: “res judicata bars a subsequent action if successful\nprosecution of that action would in effect nullify the judgment\nentered in the initial action.” Id. at 294 (citing Restatement\n(Second) of Judgments § 22(2)(b) (1982)); Carey v. Neal, Cortina\n& Associates, 576 N.E.2d 220, 225 (Ill. App. Ct. 1991)\n(describing subsection 22(2)(b) of the Restatement as a\n“common law rule of compulsory counterclaim”). This is true\nif “the defendant’s claim involves the same operative facts as\nthe plaintiff’s claim.” Id. at 293–94 (citing Torcasso v. Standard\nOutdoor Sales, Inc., 597 N.E.2d 772, 775 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992),\nrevʹd on other grounds, 626 N.E.2d 225 (Ill. 1993)).\n We conclude that res judicata should not apply in this case\nfor two main reasons. First, none of the Illinois cases relied on\nby the circuit court or the FDIC address a situation like this\none. And the most illuminating cases—if not exactly square\nwith the posture of this case—suggest that applying the\ndoctrine would be inappropriate. Second, applying the\ndoctrine in this situation neither advances the purposes of res\n\fNo. 18-3133 9\n\njudicata nor meaningfully serves the interests of judicial\neconomy.\n Illinois case law does not support an application of the\ndoctrine in these circumstances. Two wrinkles in this case\ncomplicate the typical res judicata analysis and lead us to\nconclude that the doctrine should not apply here. First, most\nof the cases addressing res judicata in Illinois involve a\nsituation in which a plaintiff in the first action attempts to\nbring the same or similar claims in a later action—not a\nsituation in which a defendant to the first action brings\naffirmative defenses as independent claims in the second\naction. Second, the default judgment applied to a different\ndefendant.1\n The FDIC responds to Doherty’s arguments on appeal by\ndirecting our attention to the broad and liberal application of\nres judicata found throughout Illinois case law. Doherty\nargues that because the circuit court dismissed him without\nprejudice on the bank’s section 2-1009 motion in the guaranty\naction, res judicata should therefore not apply. The FDIC relies\non Rein for the proposition that even though the final\njudgment on the merits did not apply to all the claims in the\nguaranty action, res judicata still applies. But Rein involved a\ncase where, in the first action, plaintiffs received a dismissal\nwith prejudice on some of their claims and voluntarily\ndismissed their remaining claims pursuant to section 2-1009.\n665 N.E.2d at 1205. They later re-filed those claims in a second\n\n 1 The FDIC does give examples of cases in which a defendant in the\nfirst action attempts to bring claims that would have been suitable for an\naffirmative defense in a later action, but this second factor distinguishes\nthem. See, e.g., Henry v. Farmer City State Bank, 808 F.2d 1228, 1235 (7th Cir.\n1986).\n\f10 No. 18-3133\n\naction, engaging in the classic claim-splitting that res judicata\nattempts to prevent. Id. at 1206. Here, Doherty neither made\na section 2-1009 motion nor had a final judgment that\naddressed any of the bank’s claims as they pertained to him\nor his defenses.\n And although we have found no case that directly applies\nto this situation, a string of Illinois cases leads us to conclude\nthat the doctrine should not apply here. “The Illinois Supreme\nCourt has held that if the basis of dismissal against one party\nbears no relationship to the merits of the case, it is\n‘inappropriate to apply the doctrine of res judicata [against]\nanother party to the action.’” Curtis, 914 N.E.2d at 260\n(quoting Downing v. Chicago Transit Auth,, 642 N.E.2d 456, 460\n(Ill. 1994)). In Downing the Supreme Court of Illinois held that\nan order that granted summary judgment in favor of an\nemployee on statute-of-limitations grounds did not preclude\na later suit based on a respondeat superior theory against his\nemployer because the summary judgment order was not\nbased on the merits of the case. According to the court, to label\na summary judgment order based on the statute of limitations\nas “an adjudication on the merits would be the quintessential\nact of exalting form over substance.” 642 N.E.2d at 460.\n Similarly, in DeLuna v. Treister, the court refused to apply\nres judicata in a medical malpractice case for a defendant\nhospital after its doctor obtained an involuntary dismissal\ndue to the plaintiff’s failure to meet statutory pleading\nrequirements. 708 N.E.2d at 348–49. The involuntary\ndismissal with prejudice barred the plaintiff’s subsequent\naction against the doctor, but not the hospital. Id.\n In Leow v. A & B Freight Line, Inc., the court addressed the\nproper interpretation of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 273,\n\fNo. 18-3133 11\n\nwhich explains the effects of involuntary dismissals. 676\nN.E.2d 1284, 1286 (Ill. 1997). The court determined that an\ninvoluntary dismissal against a different party acted as an\nadjudication on the merits against another party only where\n“the prior dismissal must have caused the defendant to\nprepare to address the actual merits of plaintiff’s claim.”\nDeLuna, 708 N.E.2d at 347 (quotations omitted). See Leow, 676\nN.E.2d at 1288.\n The FDIC attempts to distinguish these cases because this\ncase involves neither involuntary dismissal nor vicarious lia-\nbility for employers. And, as we have noted, default judg-\nments are typically considered final judgments on the merits\nfor the purposes of res judicata. Hous. Auth. for La Salle Cty., 461\nN.E.2d at 963.\n But we believe the principles of equity underlying this\nstring of cases may be applied here. In the guaranty action,\nDoherty appeared, filed a response, and raised his affirmative\ndefenses against the bank’s claims. After obtaining its default\njudgment against Farano—and shortly after Doherty received\nthe handwriting expert’s report and threatened to bring a suit\nfor fraud—the bank dropped its claims against Worth and\nDoherty and dismissed those defendants without prejudice.\nThis posture ensured that the bank never had to address or\ndefend itself against Doherty’s fraud allegations.\nAccordingly, because the bank never had to address (and the\ncircuit court likewise never had to consider) Doherty’s fraud\nclaims, we do not believe the default judgment against a\ndifferent defendant barred Doherty’s later action.\n Applying res judicata in this situation also does not\nadvance the purposes of the doctrine. One of those purposes\nis to prevent a second litigation from undermining the prior\n\f12 No. 18-3133\n\njudgment. See Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 22(2)(b)\n(1982) (explaining that a defendant who fails to interpose a\npermissible counterclaim in an action is precluded from\nbringing a subsequent action on that claim if the claim’s\nsuccessful prosecution “would nullify the initial judgment or\nwould impair rights established in the initial action”). The\nFDIC argues that if Doherty were to succeed on his claims of\nfraud, it could undermine the circuit court’s conclusion that\nWorth owed money to the bank and that Farano defaulted on\nhis personal guaranty of the Worth loan. We find that\nargument unpersuasive. The FDIC provides no explanation\nfor how Doherty would have standing to challenge Farano’s\ndefault judgment. And at oral argument, Doherty himself\neven conceded that he likely has no standing to challenge the\ndefault judgment against Farano.\n Additionally, Doherty’s action here seeks redress for the\nbank’s alleged fraud but does not challenge the default\njudgment entered against Farano. Even if Doherty manages\nto prosecute this action successfully, the default judgment\nagainst Farano would go undisturbed. Therefore, the bank’s\ninterest in the previous litigation—its judgment against\nFarano—would remain in place.\n Similarly, as explained above, preventing claim splitting\nserves as one of the ends of applying res judicata. However,\nthat concern is not implicated in a case like this, where\nDoherty was a defendant and did not dismiss the first action\nhimself. See Rein, 665 N.E.2d at 1206 (“[P]laintiffs generally\nare not permitted to split their causes of action. The rule\nagainst claim-splitting, which is an aspect of the law of\npreclusion, prohibits a plaintiff from suing for part of a claim\n\fNo. 18-3133 13\n\nin one action and then suing for the remainder in another\naction.”).\n Nor are concerns about judicial economy implicated by\nallowing Doherty’s claims to proceed. In this case the circuit\ncourt never considered or weighed in on Doherty’s fraud\nclaims because the bank dismissed him without prejudice.\nThe bank never had to litigate these claims in the guaranty\naction—addressing them now will not force the bank into\nredundant litigation.\n Lastly, the FDIC encourages us to affirm the circuit court’s\ndismissal of Doherty’s claims on the alternative grounds that\nhis complaint fails to state a claim. Because neither the Illinois\ntrial court nor the district court have engaged Doherty’s\narguments, we decline to do so now. The district court should\nhave the first opportunity to consider that question.\n III. CONCLUSION\n Based on the foregoing, the circuit court incorrectly deter-\nmined that Doherty’s claims were barred by res judicata. Ac-\ncordingly, we REVERSE the district court’s dismissal of\nDoherty’s claims and REMAND for further proceedings.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Patrick Doherty v. FDIC\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-08-06\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-3133\\nPATRICK J. DOHERTY,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n v.\\n\\nFEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, as receiver for\\nWASHINGTON FEDERAL BANK FOR SAVINGS, et al.,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 18 CV 703 — Joan B. Gottschall, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED MAY 14, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 6, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before FLAUM, KANNE, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.\\n KANNE, Circuit Judge. Washington Federal Bank brought a\\ndefault action against Patrick Doherty, John Farano, Jr., and\\nWorth Conversion, LLC, for notes related to various real es-\\ntate ventures. Doherty raised affirmative defenses on behalf\\nof himself and Worth, but the bank dismissed Doherty and\\nWorth from the action, without prejudice, after obtaining a\\ndefault judgment against Farano. Doherty then attempted to\\n\\f2 No. 18-3133\\n\\nbring this suit against the bank with claims founded on simi-\\nlar grounds as his previously-raised affirmative defenses. But\\nthe Cook County Circuit Court determined that Doherty’s\\nclaims were barred by res judicata thanks to the default judg-\\nment entered against Farano. Doherty appealed to the Illinois\\nAppellate Court, but before his appeal was heard, Washing-\\nton Federal was placed into the Federal Deposit Insurance\\nCorporation’s receivership. The FDIC removed this action to\\nthe district court, which adopted the Illinois Circuit Court’s\\ndecision. Because res judicata does not bar Doherty’s claims,\\nwe vacate and remand for further proceedings.\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n Patrick Doherty and John Farano, Jr., formed Worth Con-\\nversion, LLC. In April 2006, Washington Federal Bank (“the\\nbank”) loaned Worth $400,000 in exchange for Worth’s prom-\\nissory note and Doherty and Farano’s personal guaranties of\\nthe loan. Washington Federal extended the maturity date of\\nthe loan multiple times, but Worth eventually defaulted. The\\nbank subsequently sued Worth, Farano, and Doherty in Cook\\nCounty Circuit Court in March 2014 (the guaranty action).\\nThe twenty-seven count complaint also included counts re-\\nlated to other loans made to another entity affiliated with\\nFarano and Doherty, F & D Services, Inc. But the bank even-\\ntually dismissed those counts and F & D Services from the\\nsuit.\\n Doherty is an attorney and he filed an appearance in the\\nguaranty action on behalf of himself and Worth. In his answer\\nto the bank’s complaint, Doherty raised affirmative defenses,\\nincluding that the bank extended the maturity date of the loan\\n\\fNo. 18-3133 3\\n\\nwithout authorization, that the bank charged fees and an in-\\nterest rate not agreed upon, and that the bank charged exces-\\nsive fees.\\n Farano never appeared, however, and the trial court en-\\ntered a default judgment for the loan balance against Farano\\nfor Count XXVI, which sought judgment on his personal\\nguaranty of the loan, on August 27, 2014. The default judg-\\nment ordered:\\n 1. [Washington Federal’s] Motion for Default and\\n Judgment is granted; 2. [The bank] has proven the\\n damages it incurred and reasonable attorney’s fees\\n and costs; 3. Judgment is entered in favor of [the\\n bank] and against Defendant John Farano Jr., in the\\n TOTAL AMOUNT of $228,739.81 due under the\\n Note; $2,804.50 due in attorney fees and $485.33 in\\n legal costs; 4. There is no just reason to delay the en-\\n forcement of the judgment, appeal, or both.\\n On April 27, 2015, Doherty received a report from a foren-\\nsic document examiner opining that his signature had been\\nforged on loan extension paperwork in 2010. Doherty sent a\\ncopy of the report to the bank’s counsel, advising them that\\nhe intended to file a suit for fraud and other claims. Around\\nthat time, the bank moved the trial court to dismiss its claims\\nagainst Worth and Doherty from the action without preju-\\ndice. The trial court dismissed the bank’s remaining counts\\n(XXV—seeking judgment against Worth on default; and\\nXXVII—seeking judgment against Doherty on his guaranty of\\nthe Worth loan) on June 15, 2015. Doherty did not object to\\nthis order.\\n Over a year later, on June 28, 2016, Doherty filed suit\\nagainst the bank, its president, its corporate secretary, and its\\n\\f4 No. 18-3133\\n\\nattorneys, alleging breach of contract, forgery, excessive fees,\\nfraud, and legal malpractice against the bank’s law firm. He\\nclaimed that during the first trial (the guaranty action), he did\\nnot learn of the bank’s alleged forgery early enough to take\\naction before being dismissed. His suit sought to recover\\ndamages for the fees he incurred defending the guaranty ac-\\ntion. The trial court dismissed Doherty’s complaint, and he\\nfiled an amended complaint alleging the same facts and\\ncounts, but he alleged malicious prosecution instead of mal-\\npractice against the bank’s legal counsel.\\n The bank and its attorneys moved to dismiss Doherty’s\\namended complaint on the grounds of res judicata, lack of\\nstanding, and (on the malicious prosecution count) failure to\\nstate a claim. The trial court dismissed Doherty’s suit, holding\\nthat most of Doherty’s claims were barred by res judicata be-\\ncause he should have brought them in the guaranty action.\\nThe trial court also determined that he failed to state a claim\\nfor malicious prosecution. Doherty appealed to the Illinois\\nAppellate Court. Before the court heard Doherty’s appeal,\\nhowever, Washington Federal was placed into the FDIC’s re-\\nceivership. The FDIC removed this action to the Northern\\nDistrict of Illinois under 12 U.S.C. § 1819(b)(2)(B).\\n II. ANALYSIS\\n The district court adopted the Illinois trial court’s ruling as\\nits own. We therefore review the Illinois trial court’s decision\\nand analyze this appeal under Illinois law. Baek v. Clausen, 886\\nF.3d 652, 660 (7th Cir. 2018). On appeal, Doherty claims that\\nthe trial court erroneously dismissed his claims on the basis\\nof res judicata. His main point seems to be that the bank’s use\\nof Farano’s default judgment to defeat Doherty’s claims trans-\\nformed res judicata from a shield into a sword. In other words,\\n\\fNo. 18-3133 5\\n\\nby holding that Doherty’s claims were barred, the district\\ncourt effectively allowed the bank to kill Doherty’s fraud\\nclaims. The bank argues that the trial court correctly deter-\\nmined that res judicata barred Doherty’s claims, but even if it\\ndoes not, Doherty’s claims should be alternatively dismissed\\nfor failure to state a claim.\\n “Whether a claim is barred by res judicata is a question of\\nlaw that we review de novo.” Curtis v. Lofy, 914 N.E.2d 248, 254\\n(Ill. App. Ct. 2009). “The party asserting res judicata as a pre-\\nclusion to the second action bears the burden of showing with\\nclarity and certainty what was determined by the prior judg-\\nment.” BankFinancial, FSB v. Tandon, 2013 IL App (1st) 113152,\\n¶ 19.\\n A. Counterclaims and Affirmative Defenses in Illinois Civil\\n Procedure\\n A brief primer on Illinois civil procedure will help clarify\\nthe nature of Doherty’s argument. The Illinois rules provide\\nthat a “plaintiff may, at any time before trial or hearing be-\\ngins, upon notice to each party who has appeared or each\\nsuch party’s attorney, and upon payment of costs, dismiss his\\nor her action or any part thereof as to any defendant, without\\nprejudice, by order filed in the cause.” 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/2-\\n1009(a). “[A] dismissal ‘without prejudice’ signals that there\\nwas no final decision on the merits and that the plaintiff is not\\nbarred from refiling the action.” Richter v. Prairie Farms Dairy,\\nInc., 2016 IL 119518, ¶ 24. The rule also stipulates that a plain-\\ntiff’s dismissal of its claims against a defendant “does not dis-\\nmiss a pending counterclaim or third party complaint.” 735\\nIll. Comp. Stat. 5/2-1009(d). Illinois courts have held that a vol-\\nuntary dismissal by the plaintiff is an appealable order. Du-\\nbina v. Mesirow Realty Dev., Inc., 687 N.E.2d 871, 874–75 (Ill.\\n\\f6 No. 18-3133\\n\\n1997) (a voluntary dismissal terminates an action in its en-\\ntirety and renders all final orders immediately appealable).\\n Doherty’s claims were styled as affirmative defenses, not\\nas counterclaims. That was probably because, under Illinois\\ncivil procedure, a defendant must raise affirmative defenses in\\nthe answer or reply. See 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/2-613(d). Con-\\nversely, counterclaims are permissive in Illinois and can be\\nbrought in their own action. See 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/2-608.\\nSee Laue v. Leifheit, 473 N.E.2d 939, 943 (Ill. 1984) (describing\\nthat section 2–608’s language should be construed as estab-\\nlishing permissive counterclaims).\\n B. Res judicata in Illinois\\n “The doctrine of res judicata bars the refiling of an action\\npreviously adjudicated on the merits when the action is di-\\nrected against the same parties and involves the same claims.”\\nDeLuna v. Treister, 708 N.E.2d 340, 344 (Ill. 1999) (citing Rein v.\\nDavid A. Noyes & Co., 665 N.E.2d 1199, 1204 (Ill. 1996)). “Res\\njudicata promotes judicial economy by preventing repetitive\\nlitigation and [additionally] protects parties from being\\nforced to bear the unjust burden of relitigating essentially the\\nsame case.” Piagentini v. Ford Motor Co., 901 N.E.2d 986, 990–\\n91 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009) (quoting Arvia v. Madigan, 809 N.E.2d\\n88, 97 (Ill. 2004) (alteration in original)).\\n There are three requirements for res judicata in Illinois: “(1)\\na final judgment on the merits … entered in the first lawsuit\\nby a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) an identity of causes\\nof action exists; (3) the parties or their privies are identical in\\nboth lawsuits.” DeLuna, 708 N.E.2d at 344. “The requirement\\nof a final order or judgment is a ‘critical’ component in show-\\ning the applicability of res judicata.” Richter, 2016 IL 119518 at\\n\\fNo. 18-3133 7\\n\\n¶ 22 (citing Hernandez v. Pritikin, 2012 IL 113054, ¶ 41). And\\nthe Supreme Court of Illinois has explained that “default\\njudgments are always res judicata on the ultimate claim or de-\\nmand presented in the complaint.” Hous. Auth. for La Salle Cty.\\nv. Young Menʹs Christian Assʹn of Ottawa, 461 N.E.2d 959, 963\\n(Ill. 1984).\\n Illinois courts have applied res judicata broadly. “The doc-\\ntrine extends not only to what was actually decided in the\\noriginal action, but also to matters which could have been de-\\ncided in that suit.” Doe v. Gleicher, 911 N.E.2d 532, 537 (Ill. App.\\nCt. 2009) (quoting Rein, 665 N.E.2d at 1204). However,\\n“[e]quity dictates that the doctrine of res judicata will not be\\ntechnically applied if to do so would create inequitable and\\nunjust results. [It] should not be applied … where it would be\\nfundamentally unfair to do so … [and] should only be applied\\nas fairness and justice require.” Piagentini, 901 N.E.2d at 990–\\n91 (citations and quotations omitted). “Although it is recom-\\nmended that the doctrine receive a liberal construction and\\nshould be applied without technical restrictions, it has also\\nbeen recommended that the doctrine should not be applied so\\nrigidly as to defeat the ends of justice.” Fed. Signal Corp. v. SLC\\nTechs., Inc., 743 N.E.2d 1066, 1077 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001) (quoting\\nThornton v. Williams, 412 N.E.2d 157, 159 (Ill. App. Ct. 1980)).\\n C. Doherty’s Claims\\n The Illinois circuit court determined that res judicata\\napplied because the default judgment against Farano\\nconstituted a final judgment on the merits. It stated that\\nidentity of parties existed because the bank named Doherty\\nas a defendant in the guaranty action, and because the bank\\nwas originally the plaintiff in the guaranty action (and the\\nother named defendants were its agents and attorneys). The\\n\\f8 No. 18-3133\\n\\ntrial court determined that identity of causes existed because\\nDoherty raised his affirmative defenses in the guaranty\\naction, and the same underlying facts supporting his\\naffirmative defenses provided the basis for his claims in the\\nlater lawsuit against the bank and its attorneys.\\n The circuit court’s opinion relied on Corcoran-Hakala v.\\nDowd to establish that res judicata bars Doherty’s claims. See\\n840 N.E.2d 286, 293–94 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). In that case, the\\nIllinois Appellate Court explained that the common law\\nprinciple of compulsory counterclaim applies in some\\ninstances in Illinois, even though the statutorily-established\\nrules of civil procedure explicitly hold that counterclaims are\\npermissive: “res judicata bars a subsequent action if successful\\nprosecution of that action would in effect nullify the judgment\\nentered in the initial action.” Id. at 294 (citing Restatement\\n(Second) of Judgments § 22(2)(b) (1982)); Carey v. Neal, Cortina\\n& Associates, 576 N.E.2d 220, 225 (Ill. App. Ct. 1991)\\n(describing subsection 22(2)(b) of the Restatement as a\\n“common law rule of compulsory counterclaim”). This is true\\nif “the defendant’s claim involves the same operative facts as\\nthe plaintiff’s claim.” Id. at 293–94 (citing Torcasso v. Standard\\nOutdoor Sales, Inc., 597 N.E.2d 772, 775 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992),\\nrevʹd on other grounds, 626 N.E.2d 225 (Ill. 1993)).\\n We conclude that res judicata should not apply in this case\\nfor two main reasons. First, none of the Illinois cases relied on\\nby the circuit court or the FDIC address a situation like this\\none. And the most illuminating cases—if not exactly square\\nwith the posture of this case—suggest that applying the\\ndoctrine would be inappropriate. Second, applying the\\ndoctrine in this situation neither advances the purposes of res\\n\\fNo. 18-3133 9\\n\\njudicata nor meaningfully serves the interests of judicial\\neconomy.\\n Illinois case law does not support an application of the\\ndoctrine in these circumstances. Two wrinkles in this case\\ncomplicate the typical res judicata analysis and lead us to\\nconclude that the doctrine should not apply here. First, most\\nof the cases addressing res judicata in Illinois involve a\\nsituation in which a plaintiff in the first action attempts to\\nbring the same or similar claims in a later action—not a\\nsituation in which a defendant to the first action brings\\naffirmative defenses as independent claims in the second\\naction. Second, the default judgment applied to a different\\ndefendant.1\\n The FDIC responds to Doherty’s arguments on appeal by\\ndirecting our attention to the broad and liberal application of\\nres judicata found throughout Illinois case law. Doherty\\nargues that because the circuit court dismissed him without\\nprejudice on the bank’s section 2-1009 motion in the guaranty\\naction, res judicata should therefore not apply. The FDIC relies\\non Rein for the proposition that even though the final\\njudgment on the merits did not apply to all the claims in the\\nguaranty action, res judicata still applies. But Rein involved a\\ncase where, in the first action, plaintiffs received a dismissal\\nwith prejudice on some of their claims and voluntarily\\ndismissed their remaining claims pursuant to section 2-1009.\\n665 N.E.2d at 1205. They later re-filed those claims in a second\\n\\n 1 The FDIC does give examples of cases in which a defendant in the\\nfirst action attempts to bring claims that would have been suitable for an\\naffirmative defense in a later action, but this second factor distinguishes\\nthem. See, e.g., Henry v. Farmer City State Bank, 808 F.2d 1228, 1235 (7th Cir.\\n1986).\\n\\f10 No. 18-3133\\n\\naction, engaging in the classic claim-splitting that res judicata\\nattempts to prevent. Id. at 1206. Here, Doherty neither made\\na section 2-1009 motion nor had a final judgment that\\naddressed any of the bank’s claims as they pertained to him\\nor his defenses.\\n And although we have found no case that directly applies\\nto this situation, a string of Illinois cases leads us to conclude\\nthat the doctrine should not apply here. “The Illinois Supreme\\nCourt has held that if the basis of dismissal against one party\\nbears no relationship to the merits of the case, it is\\n‘inappropriate to apply the doctrine of res judicata [against]\\nanother party to the action.’” Curtis, 914 N.E.2d at 260\\n(quoting Downing v. Chicago Transit Auth,, 642 N.E.2d 456, 460\\n(Ill. 1994)). In Downing the Supreme Court of Illinois held that\\nan order that granted summary judgment in favor of an\\nemployee on statute-of-limitations grounds did not preclude\\na later suit based on a respondeat superior theory against his\\nemployer because the summary judgment order was not\\nbased on the merits of the case. According to the court, to label\\na summary judgment order based on the statute of limitations\\nas “an adjudication on the merits would be the quintessential\\nact of exalting form over substance.” 642 N.E.2d at 460.\\n Similarly, in DeLuna v. Treister, the court refused to apply\\nres judicata in a medical malpractice case for a defendant\\nhospital after its doctor obtained an involuntary dismissal\\ndue to the plaintiff’s failure to meet statutory pleading\\nrequirements. 708 N.E.2d at 348–49. The involuntary\\ndismissal with prejudice barred the plaintiff’s subsequent\\naction against the doctor, but not the hospital. Id.\\n In Leow v. A & B Freight Line, Inc., the court addressed the\\nproper interpretation of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 273,\\n\\fNo. 18-3133 11\\n\\nwhich explains the effects of involuntary dismissals. 676\\nN.E.2d 1284, 1286 (Ill. 1997). The court determined that an\\ninvoluntary dismissal against a different party acted as an\\nadjudication on the merits against another party only where\\n“the prior dismissal must have caused the defendant to\\nprepare to address the actual merits of plaintiff’s claim.”\\nDeLuna, 708 N.E.2d at 347 (quotations omitted). See Leow, 676\\nN.E.2d at 1288.\\n The FDIC attempts to distinguish these cases because this\\ncase involves neither involuntary dismissal nor vicarious lia-\\nbility for employers. And, as we have noted, default judg-\\nments are typically considered final judgments on the merits\\nfor the purposes of res judicata. Hous. Auth. for La Salle Cty., 461\\nN.E.2d at 963.\\n But we believe the principles of equity underlying this\\nstring of cases may be applied here. In the guaranty action,\\nDoherty appeared, filed a response, and raised his affirmative\\ndefenses against the bank’s claims. After obtaining its default\\njudgment against Farano—and shortly after Doherty received\\nthe handwriting expert’s report and threatened to bring a suit\\nfor fraud—the bank dropped its claims against Worth and\\nDoherty and dismissed those defendants without prejudice.\\nThis posture ensured that the bank never had to address or\\ndefend itself against Doherty’s fraud allegations.\\nAccordingly, because the bank never had to address (and the\\ncircuit court likewise never had to consider) Doherty’s fraud\\nclaims, we do not believe the default judgment against a\\ndifferent defendant barred Doherty’s later action.\\n Applying res judicata in this situation also does not\\nadvance the purposes of the doctrine. One of those purposes\\nis to prevent a second litigation from undermining the prior\\n\\f12 No. 18-3133\\n\\njudgment. See Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 22(2)(b)\\n(1982) (explaining that a defendant who fails to interpose a\\npermissible counterclaim in an action is precluded from\\nbringing a subsequent action on that claim if the claim’s\\nsuccessful prosecution “would nullify the initial judgment or\\nwould impair rights established in the initial action”). The\\nFDIC argues that if Doherty were to succeed on his claims of\\nfraud, it could undermine the circuit court’s conclusion that\\nWorth owed money to the bank and that Farano defaulted on\\nhis personal guaranty of the Worth loan. We find that\\nargument unpersuasive. The FDIC provides no explanation\\nfor how Doherty would have standing to challenge Farano’s\\ndefault judgment. And at oral argument, Doherty himself\\neven conceded that he likely has no standing to challenge the\\ndefault judgment against Farano.\\n Additionally, Doherty’s action here seeks redress for the\\nbank’s alleged fraud but does not challenge the default\\njudgment entered against Farano. Even if Doherty manages\\nto prosecute this action successfully, the default judgment\\nagainst Farano would go undisturbed. Therefore, the bank’s\\ninterest in the previous litigation—its judgment against\\nFarano—would remain in place.\\n Similarly, as explained above, preventing claim splitting\\nserves as one of the ends of applying res judicata. However,\\nthat concern is not implicated in a case like this, where\\nDoherty was a defendant and did not dismiss the first action\\nhimself. See Rein, 665 N.E.2d at 1206 (“[P]laintiffs generally\\nare not permitted to split their causes of action. The rule\\nagainst claim-splitting, which is an aspect of the law of\\npreclusion, prohibits a plaintiff from suing for part of a claim\\n\\fNo. 18-3133 13\\n\\nin one action and then suing for the remainder in another\\naction.”).\\n Nor are concerns about judicial economy implicated by\\nallowing Doherty’s claims to proceed. In this case the circuit\\ncourt never considered or weighed in on Doherty’s fraud\\nclaims because the bank dismissed him without prejudice.\\nThe bank never had to litigate these claims in the guaranty\\naction—addressing them now will not force the bank into\\nredundant litigation.\\n Lastly, the FDIC encourages us to affirm the circuit court’s\\ndismissal of Doherty’s claims on the alternative grounds that\\nhis complaint fails to state a claim. Because neither the Illinois\\ntrial court nor the district court have engaged Doherty’s\\narguments, we decline to do so now. The district court should\\nhave the first opportunity to consider that question.\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n Based on the foregoing, the circuit court incorrectly deter-\\nmined that Doherty’s claims were barred by res judicata. Ac-\\ncordingly, we REVERSE the district court’s dismissal of\\nDoherty’s claims and REMAND for further proceedings.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3796,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4645919,"string":"4,645,919"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Donald Timm v. Goodyear Dunlop Tires North Am"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-08-06"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-2641"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before FLAUM, KANNE, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"SCUDDER, Circuit Judge\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-2641\\nDONALD N. TIMM and MARY K. TIMM,\\n Plaintiffs-Appellants,\\n v.\\n\\nGOODYEAR DUNLOP TIRES NORTH AMERICA, LTD.,\\nan Ohio-based Corporation, et al.,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division.\\n No. 2:14-cv-232 — Philip P. Simon, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED APRIL 5, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 6, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before FLAUM, KANNE, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.\\n SCUDDER, Circuit Judge. Donald and Mary Timm sustained\\nserious injuries in a horrific motorcycle accident. Believing de-\\nfects with the motorcycle and its rear tire caused the acci-\\ndent—and that their injuries were especially severe because\\nof a defect with their helmets—the Timms brought a products\\nliability action under Indiana law against numerous defend-\\nants involved in the sale and manufacture of the motorcycle,\\n\\f2 No. 18-2641\\n\\nits rear tire, and the helmets they wore at the time of the acci-\\ndent. Concluding that the Timms failed to present admissible\\nexpert testimony to support their claims, the district court en-\\ntered summary judgment for the defendants. We affirm.\\n I\\n On July 10, 2013, Donald and Mary Timm set off on a\\ncross-country trip on their Harley-Davidson Ultra Classic.\\nThe Timms intended to drive from their home in Dyer, Indi-\\nana to Salt Lake City, Utah. While crossing Nebraska, the cou-\\nple suffered a catastrophic accident when the motorcycle’s\\nrear tire sustained a puncture and rapidly deflated, leading\\nDonald to lose control of the motorcycle and crash into a con-\\ncrete median barrier. Mary flew off the motorcycle while Don-\\nald remained attached to the bike as it slid along the highway.\\nThough both riders were wearing helmets, each sustained se-\\nrious head injuries. In addition to suffering a traumatic brain\\ninjury, Donald sustained facial fractures and a cervical spine\\ninjury.\\n A few months later, the Timms received notice that the\\nhelmets they were wearing at the time of the accident—Ultra\\nLow Profile Outlaw Motorcycle Half Helmets—were recalled.\\nThe Timms purchased the helmets two years earlier. Mary\\npurchased her helmet through a website called Leath-\\nerUp.com (owned by Nanal, Inc.). Donald purchased his hel-\\nmet through a different internet retailer, which is not a party\\nto this suit. A company named Tegol imported and distrib-\\nuted both helmets. In its recall notice, Tegol explained that the\\nOutlaw helmets failed to conform to certain Department of\\nTransportation standards and warned that riders “may not be\\nadequately protected in the event of a crash.”\\n\\fNo. 18-2641 3\\n\\n The Timms then brought a products liability action\\nagainst Tegol, Nanal, and fourteen other corporate and indi-\\nvidual defendants involved in the manufacture, distribution,\\nand sale of Outlaw helmets (which we will collectively call the\\nhelmet defendants). Advancing claims under the Indiana\\nProducts Liability Act, the Timms alleged that their injuries\\nwould have been less severe had their helmets complied with\\nfederal safety standards and that the helmet defendants were\\nnegligent in their recall efforts. The Timms also asserted\\nclaims against Harley-Davidson, the motorcycle manufac-\\nturer, and Goodyear Dunlop (now known as Sumitomo Rub-\\nber USA), the tire manufacturer, contending that defects in the\\nmotorcycle and rear tire caused the accident.\\n Beginning with their helmets, the Timms pressed several\\nclaims, including design defect and manufacturing defect. To\\nshow that the helmets enhanced their injuries, the Timms em-\\nphasized the recall as well as the sheer severity of the injuries\\nthey sustained in the accident. But they did not present any\\nexpert testimony to show that, because of a defect with their\\nhelmets, their injuries were worse than they otherwise would\\nhave experienced in such a severe motorcycle crash. This\\nomission, the district court concluded, was fatal to their\\nclaims because “a lay juror would not be able to distinguish\\nbetween the injuries caused by the motorcycle accident and\\nthe enhanced injuries caused by the alleged defect in the hel-\\nmets without engaging in speculation.”\\n This conclusion, the district court reasoned, found support\\nin the fact that the helmet defendants offered their own med-\\nical expert, who opined that the Timms’ injuries were the type\\nhe would expect following such a serious motorcycle acci-\\ndent, even if they had been wearing helmets that complied\\n\\f4 No. 18-2641\\n\\nwith all safety standards. The court accordingly entered sum-\\nmary judgment in favor of the helmet defendants on the\\nTimms’ manufacturing and design defect claims. The court\\nalso entered judgment for the defendants on the Timms’\\nclaims alleging negligent recall and failure to comply with\\nfederal safety standards, concluding that the Indiana Prod-\\nucts Liability Act permits neither claim.\\n Turning to the allegations against Harley-Davidson and\\nGoodyear, the Timms asserted that the motorcycle’s rear tire\\n(a Dunlop D402 tire) was defective and unreasonably danger-\\nous because, following a puncture, it allowed for both exces-\\nsive air leakage and the tire to unseat—or come free—from its\\nrim. These defects, they maintained, caused Mr. Timm to lose\\ncontrol of the motorcycle and crash. The Timms further al-\\nleged that the motorcycle itself was defectively designed be-\\ncause it lacked a tire pressure monitoring system, which\\nwould have alerted Donald to the sudden loss of air in the tire\\nbefore he lost control. To support these claims, the Timms\\nproposed two experts: William Woehrle, a tire specialist, and\\nDr. Daniel Lee, an accident reconstructionist. In his report,\\nWoehrle opined on how and when the tire became unseated\\nfrom the rim and the need for a tire pressure monitoring sys-\\ntem. Dr. Lee likewise sought to testify about the ultimate\\ncause of the accident and to share his opinion that every mo-\\ntorcycle should be equipped with a tire pressure monitoring\\nsystem.\\n Harley-Davidson and Goodyear filed motions to exclude\\nWoehrle’s and Lee’s opinions, arguing they lacked the relia-\\nbility required by Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v.\\nMerrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Follow-\\ning a hearing, the district court agreed. The court concluded\\n\\fNo. 18-2641 5\\n\\nthat Woehrle’s opinion that manufacturing defects caused the\\ntire to unseat from the rim upon being punctured “appear[ed]\\nto be based on nothing more than his subjective belief and un-\\nsupported speculation,” and thus “fail[ed] to adhere to any of\\nthe Daubert guideposts.” The court also excluded Woehrle’s\\nopinion on the tire pressure monitoring system, reasoning\\nthat while Woehrle had expertise with respect to tires, he\\nlacked qualifications related to motorcycles more generally.\\nThe district court judge also determined that Woehrle’s opin-\\nions failed to comport with Rule 702 “because they [were] not\\nbased on scientifically valid methodologies.”\\n The court similarly excluded Dr. Lee’s testimony, finding\\nthat he lacked tire-related qualifications, and, in any event, his\\nmethodology with respect to both the tire defects and the tire\\npressure monitoring system lacked the reliability required by\\nDaubert.\\n Without expert testimony to support any of their claims,\\nthe court granted summary judgment for all defendants on all\\nof the Timms’ claims.\\n II\\n The Timms challenge the district court’s conclusions re-\\ngarding the need for expert testimony on their helmet claims\\nand the adequacy of their proposed expert testimony for their\\nmotorcycle and tire claims.\\n A\\n We begin with the helmet claims. While the Timms ini-\\ntially sued more than a dozen defendants, by summary judg-\\nment, only one corporate defendant remained—Nanal, Inc.\\nRecall that Nanal owns and operates the website where Mary\\nTimm purchased her helmet. Because Donald Timm\\n\\f6 No. 18-2641\\n\\npurchased his helmet on a different website, and thus not\\nfrom a supplier named as a defendant, we consider the helmet\\nclaims only with respect to Mary.\\n The parties agree that the Indiana Products Liability Act\\ngoverns the Timms’ claims. See Ind. Code § 34-20-1-1. Under\\nthe Act, “a plaintiff must prove that a product was placed into\\nthe stream of commerce in a defective condition unreasonably\\ndangerous to the user and that plaintiff's injuries were caused\\nby this dangerous product.” Campbell Hausfeld/Scott Fetzer Co.\\nv. Johnson, 109 N.E.3d 953, 956 (Ind. 2018).\\n The Timms contend that Mary’s helmet was unreasonably\\ndangerous within the meaning of the Act due to design and\\nmanufacturing defects and a related failure to warn. To sur-\\nvive summary judgment under each of these theories, Indiana\\nlaw required the Timms to show that the alleged defects prox-\\nimately caused Mary’s injuries. See Piltch v. Ford Motor Co.,\\n778 F.3d 628, 632 (7th Cir. 2015) (citing Ford Motor Co. v. Rush-\\nford, 868 N.E.2d 806, 810 (Ind. 2007)). The Timms sought to do\\nso by invoking the doctrine of “crashworthiness,” an ap-\\nproach to causation that “expands the proximate cause re-\\nquirement to include enhanced injuries” caused by a defective\\nproduct. Green v. Ford Motor Co., 942 N.E.2d 791, 793–94 (Ind.\\n2011) (quoting Miller v. Todd, 551 N.E.2d 1139, 1142 (Ind.\\n1990)). Put another way, the doctrine applies to situations\\nwhere, as here, the allegedly defective product did not cause\\nthe initial accident and any and all resulting injuries, but ra-\\nther increased or enhanced the severity of a plaintiff’s injuries.\\nSee id.\\n The Timms contend that Mary’s injuries from the crash\\nwere more severe than they would have been had her helmet\\nmet all federal safety regulations. To show that defects in the\\n\\fNo. 18-2641 7\\n\\nhelmet enhanced her injuries, the Timms presented the dis-\\ntrict court with her medical records. While this evidence cer-\\ntainly confirmed that Mary suffered very serious head injuries\\nin the accident, we agree with the district court that the rec-\\nords alone failed to distinguish those injuries that would have\\nresulted from any similar crash from any specific enhanced\\ninjuries Mary sustained as a result of the allegedly defective\\nhelmet. While plaintiffs are not always required to provide\\nexpert testimony to establish proximate causation, see U–Haul\\nInt’l., Inc. v. Nulls Machine & Mfg. Shop, 736 N.E.2d 271, 285 n.3\\n(Ind. Ct. App. 2000), the district court correctly concluded that\\nIndiana law required expert testimony here because distin-\\nguishing expected from enhanced injuries was an inquiry be-\\nyond the understanding of lay jurors, see Piltch, 778 F.3d at\\n632.\\n The district court’s reasoning finds sound support in our\\ncaselaw. We have previously held that when a plaintiff seeks\\nunder Indiana law to distinguish between ordinary and en-\\nhanced injuries, expert testimony is necessary to prevent the\\njury from engaging in guesswork. Id. at 634. In Piltch v. Ford\\nMotor Co., for example, the plaintiffs brought manufacturing\\nand design defect claims under the Indiana Products Liability\\nAct related to the air bags’ failure to deploy in a car accident.\\nSee id. Yet because the plaintiffs failed to present expert testi-\\nmony as to their injuries, we affirmed summary judgment in\\nfavor of the car manufacturer, explaining that without any ex-\\npert testimony, a “lay juror could not distinguish between the\\ninjuries caused by the collision and the enhanced injuries\\ncaused by the air bags' failure to deploy without engaging in\\npure speculation.” Id.\\n\\f8 No. 18-2641\\n\\n All agree that Mary Timm suffered severe injuries. But\\nwithout the assistance of an expert, a juror would be unable\\nto distinguish between those injuries caused by the crash—in\\nother words, the injuries anyone in this type of accident\\nwould have suffered—and any enhanced or more severe in-\\njuries caused by the defective helmet. Summary judgment\\nwas therefore proper on the Timms’ design defect and manu-\\nfacturing defect claims.\\n For the sake of completeness, we address the failure-to-\\nwarn claim the Timms advanced based on allegations that the\\ndefendants delayed issuing the helmet recall notice. The dis-\\ntrict court considered this a claim of negligent recall and en-\\ntered summary judgment for the helmet defendants because\\nit found no support for such claims under Indiana law. Be-\\ncause the Timms do not address this argument on appeal, we\\nconsider it waived. See Mahaffey v. Ramos, 588 F.3d 1142, 1146\\n(7th Cir. 2009) (declining to consider claims not adequately\\nbriefed).\\n B\\n The Timms next argue that summary judgment against\\nHarley-Davidson and Goodyear was improper because the\\ndistrict court erred in excluding the testimony of their experts,\\nWilliam Woehrle and Dr. Daniel Lee.\\n At the time of the accident, the Timms were traveling cross\\ncountry on their 2006 Harley-Davidson Ultra Classic Motor-\\ncycle. It is undisputed that the rear tire—manufactured by\\nGoodyear Dunlop and branded with the name Harley-Da-\\nvidson—was punctured by a road hazard and began to de-\\nflate, eventually unseating from its rim. The issue at the heart\\nof the Timms’ claims requires pinpointing exactly when the\\n\\fNo. 18-2641 9\\n\\nrubber unseated from the rim. For their part, the Timms con-\\ntend that the tire’s unseating occurred nearly instantly be-\\ncause of defects and, in turn, that the unseating caused Don-\\nald to lose control of the motorcycle and crash. The defend-\\nants urge a contrary view. They resist that the unseating im-\\nmediately followed the puncture and instead maintain that\\nthe motorcycle crash itself is what caused the tire to unseat\\nfrom the rim. The Timms rightly recognized that answering\\nthis causation question required expert testimony. Toward\\nthat end, they offered the opinions of Woehrle and Lee, which\\nthe district court ultimately excluded.\\n Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert govern the ad-\\nmissibility of expert testimony. Under this framework, a trial\\njudge, as a gatekeeping matter, is responsible for ensuring\\nthat proposed expert testimony “is not only relevant, but reli-\\nable.” Daubert, 509 U.S. at 589. In assessing reliability, “the\\nrole of the court is to determine whether the expert is qualified\\nin the relevant field and to examine the methodology the ex-\\npert has used in reaching his conclusions.” Smith v. Ford Motor\\nCo., 215 F.3d 713, 718 (7th Cir. 2000).\\n Although reliability must be assessed case by case, Daubert\\nidentified a non-exhaustive list of factors to aid the analysis.\\nRelevant considerations include not only whether the expert’s\\ntheory “can be (and has been) tested,” but also whether it has\\nbeen “subjected to peer review and publication.” 509 U.S. at\\n593. Other potential considerations include “the known or po-\\ntential rate of error” and whether the theory or technique has\\nachieved “general acceptance” in the relevant expert commu-\\nnity. Id. at 594–95. No one factor is dispositive, however, and\\n“the Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized [that] the\\nRule 702 test is a flexible one.” Smith, 215 F.3d at 719. The\\n\\f10 No. 18-2641\\n\\nCourt has likewise underscored that the correct inquiry fo-\\ncuses not on “the ultimate correctness of the expert’s conclu-\\nsions,” but rather on “the soundness and care with which the\\nexpert arrived at her opinion.” Schultz v. Akzo Nobel Paints,\\nLLC, 721 F.3d 426, 431 (7th Cir. 2013) (citing Daubert, 509 U.S.\\nat 595).\\n Faced as we are here with a challenge to a district court’s\\nexclusion of expert testimony, our review proceeds in two\\nsteps. We “review de novo whether a district judge has fol-\\nlowed Rule 702 and Daubert” and, if the court correctly “ap-\\nplied the Rule 702/Daubert framework, we [then] review [its]\\ndecision to admit or exclude expert testimony for abuse of dis-\\ncretion.” Haley v. Kolbe & Kolbe Millwork Co., 863 F.3d 600, 611\\n(7th Cir. 2017).\\n We find no errors here. In response to the defendants’ mo-\\ntions to exclude Woehrle’s and Lee’s testimony, the district\\ncourt held a Daubert hearing. The court used the hearing to\\nprobe Woehrle about the basis for his opinions, the method-\\nology he employed to formulate his theories, and the poten-\\ntial rate of error of his approach—all proper considerations\\nunder Rule 702 and Daubert. In its written decision, the court\\nfurther conveyed its understanding of the Rule and Daubert\\nfactors by accurately articulating them and proceeding to ap-\\nply them to Woehrle’s and Lee’s testimony and opinions. See\\nClark v. River Metals Recycling, 929 F.3d 434, 438 (7th Cir. 2019).\\nThere is no question the district court applied the correct evi-\\ndentiary framework.\\n Turning to the court’s rulings, we see no abuse of discre-\\ntion with the exclusion of Woehrle’s and Lee’s testimony. In\\nhis report and testimony, Woehrle posited that the Timms’\\nmotorcycle accident was the result of the tire unseating from\\n\\fNo. 18-2641 11\\n\\nits rim. He further opined that the unseating occurred because\\nthere was excess “flash” in the bead area (the edge of the tire\\nthat sits on the wheel rim) and insufficient rubber covering\\nthe chafer strip (a reinforcement of the bead area), which\\nweakened the fit between the tire and the rim. Woehrle testi-\\nfied that he arrived at this conclusion by conducting a physi-\\ncal examination of the tire and wheel. When pressed about his\\nmethodology, however, Woehrle conceded that he could\\npoint to no empirical data or controlled experiments to sup-\\nport his opinions. He further acknowledged that he had not\\ndone any testing to validate his opinion, was unaware of any\\nrelevant tests conducted by others, and knew of no way others\\ncould objectively replicate his approach.\\n On this evidence, the district court was well within its dis-\\ncretion to exclude Woerhle’s opinions about the cause of the\\ntire unseating. To satisfy the requirements of Rule 702 and\\nDaubert, Woerhle needed to show that his conclusions were\\nthe fruit of a rigorous, objectively-verifiable approach—some-\\nthing more than mere speculation. While Woerhle may well\\nhave had the experience and knowledge to make this show-\\ning, he failed to do so. All of this leads to underscore anew\\nthat even a “supremely qualified expert cannot waltz into the\\ncourtroom and render opinions unless those opinions are\\nbased upon some recognized scientific method.” Smith, 215\\nF.3d at 718 (quoting Clark v. Takata Corp., 192 F.3d 750, 759 n.5\\n(7th Cir. 1999)). The record amply supports the district court’s\\nconclusion that the Timms failed to establish that Woehrle’s\\nopinions were sufficiently reliable.\\n Nor do we see any abuse of discretion in the district\\ncourt’s exclusion of Dr. Lee’s opinions regarding the cause of\\nthe crash. In his report, Dr. Lee opined that Mr. Timm lost\\n\\f12 No. 18-2641\\n\\ncontrol of the motorcycle because the rear tire started to\\n“hop.” This hopping, Lee maintained, was the result of the\\ntire unseating from the rim. In addition to questioning Lee’s\\nqualifications with respect to the functioning of tires and how\\nthey can unseat from a rim, the district court concluded that\\nLee’s methodology did not comport with Daubert because Lee\\nfailed to point to any test replicating the conditions under\\nwhich the rubber beading would have come unseated or any\\ntesting to support his theory that bead unseating would cause\\na motorcycle to hop. Lee likewise failed to identify any scien-\\ntific literature to support his opinion. In the absence of any-\\nthing to support his conclusions, the district court acted\\nwithin its discretion in excluding Dr. Lee’s opinions about the\\ncause of the unseating.\\n Finally, we consider the court’s exclusion of Woehrle’s\\nand Lee’s testimony regarding the tire pressure monitoring\\nsystem. The Timms alleged that the motorcycle was defec-\\ntively designed because it should have been equipped with\\nsuch a monitoring system. They sought to support this claim\\nwith testimony from both Woehrle and Lee, who opined that\\nthe accident would not have happened if the motorcycle came\\nequipped with such a system.\\n The district court concluded that neither expert possessed\\nthe requisite qualifications to offer such testimony. Here, too,\\nwe find no abuse of discretion. Though Woehrle has expertise\\nwith the design and operation of tires, the record supports the\\ndistrict court’s conclusion that this knowledge and experience\\ndoes not extend to motorcycles. Indeed, Woehrle himself\\nacknowledged that he is not an expert in the design of tire\\npressure monitoring systems for motorcycles and he has\\nnever conducted any research on this topic. While the court\\n\\fNo. 18-2641 13\\n\\nrecognized that Dr. Lee did have significant experience with\\nmotorcycles, Lee testified during his deposition that he lacked\\nfamiliarity with tire pressure monitoring systems. Given this\\nadmission, the district court’s assessment of Lee’s qualifica-\\ntions—and its decision to exclude his testimony—reflected no\\nabuse of discretion.\\n Because the Timms’ manufacturing and design defect\\nclaims against Harley-Davidson and Goodyear rested on\\nWoehrle’s and Lee’s testimony, the district court’s evidentiary\\nrulings defeated those claims. The same evidentiary shortfalls\\ndefeated the Timms’ claim based on a failure to warn.\\n * * *\\n What happened here was tragic. Donald and Mary Timm\\nsuffered extremely serious injuries in an extremely serious\\nmotorcycle accident. We have no doubt that these injuries\\nhave impacted their lives in substantial and lasting ways.\\nWhat we cannot say, though, is that the district court commit-\\nted any error in rejecting their legal claims. So we are left to\\nAFFIRM.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4423172/\", \"author_raw\": \"SCUDDER, Circuit Judge\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"FLAUM"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"KANNE"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"SCUDDER"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"FLAUM\": \", Circuit\", \"KANNE\": \", Circuit\", \"SCUDDER\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645919/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":8,"string":"8"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Donald Timm v. Goodyear Dunlop Tires North Am\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-08-06\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-2641\nDONALD N. TIMM and MARY K. TIMM,\n Plaintiffs-Appellants,\n v.\n\nGOODYEAR DUNLOP TIRES NORTH AMERICA, LTD.,\nan Ohio-based Corporation, et al.,\n Defendants-Appellees.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division.\n No. 2:14-cv-232 — Philip P. Simon, Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED APRIL 5, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 6, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before FLAUM, KANNE, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.\n SCUDDER, Circuit Judge. Donald and Mary Timm sustained\nserious injuries in a horrific motorcycle accident. Believing de-\nfects with the motorcycle and its rear tire caused the acci-\ndent—and that their injuries were especially severe because\nof a defect with their helmets—the Timms brought a products\nliability action under Indiana law against numerous defend-\nants involved in the sale and manufacture of the motorcycle,\n\f2 No. 18-2641\n\nits rear tire, and the helmets they wore at the time of the acci-\ndent. Concluding that the Timms failed to present admissible\nexpert testimony to support their claims, the district court en-\ntered summary judgment for the defendants. We affirm.\n I\n On July 10, 2013, Donald and Mary Timm set off on a\ncross-country trip on their Harley-Davidson Ultra Classic.\nThe Timms intended to drive from their home in Dyer, Indi-\nana to Salt Lake City, Utah. While crossing Nebraska, the cou-\nple suffered a catastrophic accident when the motorcycle’s\nrear tire sustained a puncture and rapidly deflated, leading\nDonald to lose control of the motorcycle and crash into a con-\ncrete median barrier. Mary flew off the motorcycle while Don-\nald remained attached to the bike as it slid along the highway.\nThough both riders were wearing helmets, each sustained se-\nrious head injuries. In addition to suffering a traumatic brain\ninjury, Donald sustained facial fractures and a cervical spine\ninjury.\n A few months later, the Timms received notice that the\nhelmets they were wearing at the time of the accident—Ultra\nLow Profile Outlaw Motorcycle Half Helmets—were recalled.\nThe Timms purchased the helmets two years earlier. Mary\npurchased her helmet through a website called Leath-\nerUp.com (owned by Nanal, Inc.). Donald purchased his hel-\nmet through a different internet retailer, which is not a party\nto this suit. A company named Tegol imported and distrib-\nuted both helmets. In its recall notice, Tegol explained that the\nOutlaw helmets failed to conform to certain Department of\nTransportation standards and warned that riders “may not be\nadequately protected in the event of a crash.”\n\fNo. 18-2641 3\n\n The Timms then brought a products liability action\nagainst Tegol, Nanal, and fourteen other corporate and indi-\nvidual defendants involved in the manufacture, distribution,\nand sale of Outlaw helmets (which we will collectively call the\nhelmet defendants). Advancing claims under the Indiana\nProducts Liability Act, the Timms alleged that their injuries\nwould have been less severe had their helmets complied with\nfederal safety standards and that the helmet defendants were\nnegligent in their recall efforts. The Timms also asserted\nclaims against Harley-Davidson, the motorcycle manufac-\nturer, and Goodyear Dunlop (now known as Sumitomo Rub-\nber USA), the tire manufacturer, contending that defects in the\nmotorcycle and rear tire caused the accident.\n Beginning with their helmets, the Timms pressed several\nclaims, including design defect and manufacturing defect. To\nshow that the helmets enhanced their injuries, the Timms em-\nphasized the recall as well as the sheer severity of the injuries\nthey sustained in the accident. But they did not present any\nexpert testimony to show that, because of a defect with their\nhelmets, their injuries were worse than they otherwise would\nhave experienced in such a severe motorcycle crash. This\nomission, the district court concluded, was fatal to their\nclaims because “a lay juror would not be able to distinguish\nbetween the injuries caused by the motorcycle accident and\nthe enhanced injuries caused by the alleged defect in the hel-\nmets without engaging in speculation.”\n This conclusion, the district court reasoned, found support\nin the fact that the helmet defendants offered their own med-\nical expert, who opined that the Timms’ injuries were the type\nhe would expect following such a serious motorcycle acci-\ndent, even if they had been wearing helmets that complied\n\f4 No. 18-2641\n\nwith all safety standards. The court accordingly entered sum-\nmary judgment in favor of the helmet defendants on the\nTimms’ manufacturing and design defect claims. The court\nalso entered judgment for the defendants on the Timms’\nclaims alleging negligent recall and failure to comply with\nfederal safety standards, concluding that the Indiana Prod-\nucts Liability Act permits neither claim.\n Turning to the allegations against Harley-Davidson and\nGoodyear, the Timms asserted that the motorcycle’s rear tire\n(a Dunlop D402 tire) was defective and unreasonably danger-\nous because, following a puncture, it allowed for both exces-\nsive air leakage and the tire to unseat—or come free—from its\nrim. These defects, they maintained, caused Mr. Timm to lose\ncontrol of the motorcycle and crash. The Timms further al-\nleged that the motorcycle itself was defectively designed be-\ncause it lacked a tire pressure monitoring system, which\nwould have alerted Donald to the sudden loss of air in the tire\nbefore he lost control. To support these claims, the Timms\nproposed two experts: William Woehrle, a tire specialist, and\nDr. Daniel Lee, an accident reconstructionist. In his report,\nWoehrle opined on how and when the tire became unseated\nfrom the rim and the need for a tire pressure monitoring sys-\ntem. Dr. Lee likewise sought to testify about the ultimate\ncause of the accident and to share his opinion that every mo-\ntorcycle should be equipped with a tire pressure monitoring\nsystem.\n Harley-Davidson and Goodyear filed motions to exclude\nWoehrle’s and Lee’s opinions, arguing they lacked the relia-\nbility required by Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v.\nMerrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Follow-\ning a hearing, the district court agreed. The court concluded\n\fNo. 18-2641 5\n\nthat Woehrle’s opinion that manufacturing defects caused the\ntire to unseat from the rim upon being punctured “appear[ed]\nto be based on nothing more than his subjective belief and un-\nsupported speculation,” and thus “fail[ed] to adhere to any of\nthe Daubert guideposts.” The court also excluded Woehrle’s\nopinion on the tire pressure monitoring system, reasoning\nthat while Woehrle had expertise with respect to tires, he\nlacked qualifications related to motorcycles more generally.\nThe district court judge also determined that Woehrle’s opin-\nions failed to comport with Rule 702 “because they [were] not\nbased on scientifically valid methodologies.”\n The court similarly excluded Dr. Lee’s testimony, finding\nthat he lacked tire-related qualifications, and, in any event, his\nmethodology with respect to both the tire defects and the tire\npressure monitoring system lacked the reliability required by\nDaubert.\n Without expert testimony to support any of their claims,\nthe court granted summary judgment for all defendants on all\nof the Timms’ claims.\n II\n The Timms challenge the district court’s conclusions re-\ngarding the need for expert testimony on their helmet claims\nand the adequacy of their proposed expert testimony for their\nmotorcycle and tire claims.\n A\n We begin with the helmet claims. While the Timms ini-\ntially sued more than a dozen defendants, by summary judg-\nment, only one corporate defendant remained—Nanal, Inc.\nRecall that Nanal owns and operates the website where Mary\nTimm purchased her helmet. Because Donald Timm\n\f6 No. 18-2641\n\npurchased his helmet on a different website, and thus not\nfrom a supplier named as a defendant, we consider the helmet\nclaims only with respect to Mary.\n The parties agree that the Indiana Products Liability Act\ngoverns the Timms’ claims. See Ind. Code § 34-20-1-1. Under\nthe Act, “a plaintiff must prove that a product was placed into\nthe stream of commerce in a defective condition unreasonably\ndangerous to the user and that plaintiff's injuries were caused\nby this dangerous product.” Campbell Hausfeld/Scott Fetzer Co.\nv. Johnson, 109 N.E.3d 953, 956 (Ind. 2018).\n The Timms contend that Mary’s helmet was unreasonably\ndangerous within the meaning of the Act due to design and\nmanufacturing defects and a related failure to warn. To sur-\nvive summary judgment under each of these theories, Indiana\nlaw required the Timms to show that the alleged defects prox-\nimately caused Mary’s injuries. See Piltch v. Ford Motor Co.,\n778 F.3d 628, 632 (7th Cir. 2015) (citing Ford Motor Co. v. Rush-\nford, 868 N.E.2d 806, 810 (Ind. 2007)). The Timms sought to do\nso by invoking the doctrine of “crashworthiness,” an ap-\nproach to causation that “expands the proximate cause re-\nquirement to include enhanced injuries” caused by a defective\nproduct. Green v. Ford Motor Co., 942 N.E.2d 791, 793–94 (Ind.\n2011) (quoting Miller v. Todd, 551 N.E.2d 1139, 1142 (Ind.\n1990)). Put another way, the doctrine applies to situations\nwhere, as here, the allegedly defective product did not cause\nthe initial accident and any and all resulting injuries, but ra-\nther increased or enhanced the severity of a plaintiff’s injuries.\nSee id.\n The Timms contend that Mary’s injuries from the crash\nwere more severe than they would have been had her helmet\nmet all federal safety regulations. To show that defects in the\n\fNo. 18-2641 7\n\nhelmet enhanced her injuries, the Timms presented the dis-\ntrict court with her medical records. While this evidence cer-\ntainly confirmed that Mary suffered very serious head injuries\nin the accident, we agree with the district court that the rec-\nords alone failed to distinguish those injuries that would have\nresulted from any similar crash from any specific enhanced\ninjuries Mary sustained as a result of the allegedly defective\nhelmet. While plaintiffs are not always required to provide\nexpert testimony to establish proximate causation, see U–Haul\nInt’l., Inc. v. Nulls Machine & Mfg. Shop, 736 N.E.2d 271, 285 n.3\n(Ind. Ct. App. 2000), the district court correctly concluded that\nIndiana law required expert testimony here because distin-\nguishing expected from enhanced injuries was an inquiry be-\nyond the understanding of lay jurors, see Piltch, 778 F.3d at\n632.\n The district court’s reasoning finds sound support in our\ncaselaw. We have previously held that when a plaintiff seeks\nunder Indiana law to distinguish between ordinary and en-\nhanced injuries, expert testimony is necessary to prevent the\njury from engaging in guesswork. Id. at 634. In Piltch v. Ford\nMotor Co., for example, the plaintiffs brought manufacturing\nand design defect claims under the Indiana Products Liability\nAct related to the air bags’ failure to deploy in a car accident.\nSee id. Yet because the plaintiffs failed to present expert testi-\nmony as to their injuries, we affirmed summary judgment in\nfavor of the car manufacturer, explaining that without any ex-\npert testimony, a “lay juror could not distinguish between the\ninjuries caused by the collision and the enhanced injuries\ncaused by the air bags' failure to deploy without engaging in\npure speculation.” Id.\n\f8 No. 18-2641\n\n All agree that Mary Timm suffered severe injuries. But\nwithout the assistance of an expert, a juror would be unable\nto distinguish between those injuries caused by the crash—in\nother words, the injuries anyone in this type of accident\nwould have suffered—and any enhanced or more severe in-\njuries caused by the defective helmet. Summary judgment\nwas therefore proper on the Timms’ design defect and manu-\nfacturing defect claims.\n For the sake of completeness, we address the failure-to-\nwarn claim the Timms advanced based on allegations that the\ndefendants delayed issuing the helmet recall notice. The dis-\ntrict court considered this a claim of negligent recall and en-\ntered summary judgment for the helmet defendants because\nit found no support for such claims under Indiana law. Be-\ncause the Timms do not address this argument on appeal, we\nconsider it waived. See Mahaffey v. Ramos, 588 F.3d 1142, 1146\n(7th Cir. 2009) (declining to consider claims not adequately\nbriefed).\n B\n The Timms next argue that summary judgment against\nHarley-Davidson and Goodyear was improper because the\ndistrict court erred in excluding the testimony of their experts,\nWilliam Woehrle and Dr. Daniel Lee.\n At the time of the accident, the Timms were traveling cross\ncountry on their 2006 Harley-Davidson Ultra Classic Motor-\ncycle. It is undisputed that the rear tire—manufactured by\nGoodyear Dunlop and branded with the name Harley-Da-\nvidson—was punctured by a road hazard and began to de-\nflate, eventually unseating from its rim. The issue at the heart\nof the Timms’ claims requires pinpointing exactly when the\n\fNo. 18-2641 9\n\nrubber unseated from the rim. For their part, the Timms con-\ntend that the tire’s unseating occurred nearly instantly be-\ncause of defects and, in turn, that the unseating caused Don-\nald to lose control of the motorcycle and crash. The defend-\nants urge a contrary view. They resist that the unseating im-\nmediately followed the puncture and instead maintain that\nthe motorcycle crash itself is what caused the tire to unseat\nfrom the rim. The Timms rightly recognized that answering\nthis causation question required expert testimony. Toward\nthat end, they offered the opinions of Woehrle and Lee, which\nthe district court ultimately excluded.\n Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert govern the ad-\nmissibility of expert testimony. Under this framework, a trial\njudge, as a gatekeeping matter, is responsible for ensuring\nthat proposed expert testimony “is not only relevant, but reli-\nable.” Daubert, 509 U.S. at 589. In assessing reliability, “the\nrole of the court is to determine whether the expert is qualified\nin the relevant field and to examine the methodology the ex-\npert has used in reaching his conclusions.” Smith v. Ford Motor\nCo., 215 F.3d 713, 718 (7th Cir. 2000).\n Although reliability must be assessed case by case, Daubert\nidentified a non-exhaustive list of factors to aid the analysis.\nRelevant considerations include not only whether the expert’s\ntheory “can be (and has been) tested,” but also whether it has\nbeen “subjected to peer review and publication.” 509 U.S. at\n593. Other potential considerations include “the known or po-\ntential rate of error” and whether the theory or technique has\nachieved “general acceptance” in the relevant expert commu-\nnity. Id. at 594–95. No one factor is dispositive, however, and\n“the Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized [that] the\nRule 702 test is a flexible one.” Smith, 215 F.3d at 719. The\n\f10 No. 18-2641\n\nCourt has likewise underscored that the correct inquiry fo-\ncuses not on “the ultimate correctness of the expert’s conclu-\nsions,” but rather on “the soundness and care with which the\nexpert arrived at her opinion.” Schultz v. Akzo Nobel Paints,\nLLC, 721 F.3d 426, 431 (7th Cir. 2013) (citing Daubert, 509 U.S.\nat 595).\n Faced as we are here with a challenge to a district court’s\nexclusion of expert testimony, our review proceeds in two\nsteps. We “review de novo whether a district judge has fol-\nlowed Rule 702 and Daubert” and, if the court correctly “ap-\nplied the Rule 702/Daubert framework, we [then] review [its]\ndecision to admit or exclude expert testimony for abuse of dis-\ncretion.” Haley v. Kolbe & Kolbe Millwork Co., 863 F.3d 600, 611\n(7th Cir. 2017).\n We find no errors here. In response to the defendants’ mo-\ntions to exclude Woehrle’s and Lee’s testimony, the district\ncourt held a Daubert hearing. The court used the hearing to\nprobe Woehrle about the basis for his opinions, the method-\nology he employed to formulate his theories, and the poten-\ntial rate of error of his approach—all proper considerations\nunder Rule 702 and Daubert. In its written decision, the court\nfurther conveyed its understanding of the Rule and Daubert\nfactors by accurately articulating them and proceeding to ap-\nply them to Woehrle’s and Lee’s testimony and opinions. See\nClark v. River Metals Recycling, 929 F.3d 434, 438 (7th Cir. 2019).\nThere is no question the district court applied the correct evi-\ndentiary framework.\n Turning to the court’s rulings, we see no abuse of discre-\ntion with the exclusion of Woehrle’s and Lee’s testimony. In\nhis report and testimony, Woehrle posited that the Timms’\nmotorcycle accident was the result of the tire unseating from\n\fNo. 18-2641 11\n\nits rim. He further opined that the unseating occurred because\nthere was excess “flash” in the bead area (the edge of the tire\nthat sits on the wheel rim) and insufficient rubber covering\nthe chafer strip (a reinforcement of the bead area), which\nweakened the fit between the tire and the rim. Woehrle testi-\nfied that he arrived at this conclusion by conducting a physi-\ncal examination of the tire and wheel. When pressed about his\nmethodology, however, Woehrle conceded that he could\npoint to no empirical data or controlled experiments to sup-\nport his opinions. He further acknowledged that he had not\ndone any testing to validate his opinion, was unaware of any\nrelevant tests conducted by others, and knew of no way others\ncould objectively replicate his approach.\n On this evidence, the district court was well within its dis-\ncretion to exclude Woerhle’s opinions about the cause of the\ntire unseating. To satisfy the requirements of Rule 702 and\nDaubert, Woerhle needed to show that his conclusions were\nthe fruit of a rigorous, objectively-verifiable approach—some-\nthing more than mere speculation. While Woerhle may well\nhave had the experience and knowledge to make this show-\ning, he failed to do so. All of this leads to underscore anew\nthat even a “supremely qualified expert cannot waltz into the\ncourtroom and render opinions unless those opinions are\nbased upon some recognized scientific method.” Smith, 215\nF.3d at 718 (quoting Clark v. Takata Corp., 192 F.3d 750, 759 n.5\n(7th Cir. 1999)). The record amply supports the district court’s\nconclusion that the Timms failed to establish that Woehrle’s\nopinions were sufficiently reliable.\n Nor do we see any abuse of discretion in the district\ncourt’s exclusion of Dr. Lee’s opinions regarding the cause of\nthe crash. In his report, Dr. Lee opined that Mr. Timm lost\n\f12 No. 18-2641\n\ncontrol of the motorcycle because the rear tire started to\n“hop.” This hopping, Lee maintained, was the result of the\ntire unseating from the rim. In addition to questioning Lee’s\nqualifications with respect to the functioning of tires and how\nthey can unseat from a rim, the district court concluded that\nLee’s methodology did not comport with Daubert because Lee\nfailed to point to any test replicating the conditions under\nwhich the rubber beading would have come unseated or any\ntesting to support his theory that bead unseating would cause\na motorcycle to hop. Lee likewise failed to identify any scien-\ntific literature to support his opinion. In the absence of any-\nthing to support his conclusions, the district court acted\nwithin its discretion in excluding Dr. Lee’s opinions about the\ncause of the unseating.\n Finally, we consider the court’s exclusion of Woehrle’s\nand Lee’s testimony regarding the tire pressure monitoring\nsystem. The Timms alleged that the motorcycle was defec-\ntively designed because it should have been equipped with\nsuch a monitoring system. They sought to support this claim\nwith testimony from both Woehrle and Lee, who opined that\nthe accident would not have happened if the motorcycle came\nequipped with such a system.\n The district court concluded that neither expert possessed\nthe requisite qualifications to offer such testimony. Here, too,\nwe find no abuse of discretion. Though Woehrle has expertise\nwith the design and operation of tires, the record supports the\ndistrict court’s conclusion that this knowledge and experience\ndoes not extend to motorcycles. Indeed, Woehrle himself\nacknowledged that he is not an expert in the design of tire\npressure monitoring systems for motorcycles and he has\nnever conducted any research on this topic. While the court\n\fNo. 18-2641 13\n\nrecognized that Dr. Lee did have significant experience with\nmotorcycles, Lee testified during his deposition that he lacked\nfamiliarity with tire pressure monitoring systems. Given this\nadmission, the district court’s assessment of Lee’s qualifica-\ntions—and its decision to exclude his testimony—reflected no\nabuse of discretion.\n Because the Timms’ manufacturing and design defect\nclaims against Harley-Davidson and Goodyear rested on\nWoehrle’s and Lee’s testimony, the district court’s evidentiary\nrulings defeated those claims. The same evidentiary shortfalls\ndefeated the Timms’ claim based on a failure to warn.\n * * *\n What happened here was tragic. Donald and Mary Timm\nsuffered extremely serious injuries in an extremely serious\nmotorcycle accident. We have no doubt that these injuries\nhave impacted their lives in substantial and lasting ways.\nWhat we cannot say, though, is that the district court commit-\nted any error in rejecting their legal claims. So we are left to\nAFFIRM.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Donald Timm v. Goodyear Dunlop Tires North Am\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-08-06\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-2641\\nDONALD N. TIMM and MARY K. TIMM,\\n Plaintiffs-Appellants,\\n v.\\n\\nGOODYEAR DUNLOP TIRES NORTH AMERICA, LTD.,\\nan Ohio-based Corporation, et al.,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division.\\n No. 2:14-cv-232 — Philip P. Simon, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED APRIL 5, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 6, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before FLAUM, KANNE, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.\\n SCUDDER, Circuit Judge. Donald and Mary Timm sustained\\nserious injuries in a horrific motorcycle accident. Believing de-\\nfects with the motorcycle and its rear tire caused the acci-\\ndent—and that their injuries were especially severe because\\nof a defect with their helmets—the Timms brought a products\\nliability action under Indiana law against numerous defend-\\nants involved in the sale and manufacture of the motorcycle,\\n\\f2 No. 18-2641\\n\\nits rear tire, and the helmets they wore at the time of the acci-\\ndent. Concluding that the Timms failed to present admissible\\nexpert testimony to support their claims, the district court en-\\ntered summary judgment for the defendants. We affirm.\\n I\\n On July 10, 2013, Donald and Mary Timm set off on a\\ncross-country trip on their Harley-Davidson Ultra Classic.\\nThe Timms intended to drive from their home in Dyer, Indi-\\nana to Salt Lake City, Utah. While crossing Nebraska, the cou-\\nple suffered a catastrophic accident when the motorcycle’s\\nrear tire sustained a puncture and rapidly deflated, leading\\nDonald to lose control of the motorcycle and crash into a con-\\ncrete median barrier. Mary flew off the motorcycle while Don-\\nald remained attached to the bike as it slid along the highway.\\nThough both riders were wearing helmets, each sustained se-\\nrious head injuries. In addition to suffering a traumatic brain\\ninjury, Donald sustained facial fractures and a cervical spine\\ninjury.\\n A few months later, the Timms received notice that the\\nhelmets they were wearing at the time of the accident—Ultra\\nLow Profile Outlaw Motorcycle Half Helmets—were recalled.\\nThe Timms purchased the helmets two years earlier. Mary\\npurchased her helmet through a website called Leath-\\nerUp.com (owned by Nanal, Inc.). Donald purchased his hel-\\nmet through a different internet retailer, which is not a party\\nto this suit. A company named Tegol imported and distrib-\\nuted both helmets. In its recall notice, Tegol explained that the\\nOutlaw helmets failed to conform to certain Department of\\nTransportation standards and warned that riders “may not be\\nadequately protected in the event of a crash.”\\n\\fNo. 18-2641 3\\n\\n The Timms then brought a products liability action\\nagainst Tegol, Nanal, and fourteen other corporate and indi-\\nvidual defendants involved in the manufacture, distribution,\\nand sale of Outlaw helmets (which we will collectively call the\\nhelmet defendants). Advancing claims under the Indiana\\nProducts Liability Act, the Timms alleged that their injuries\\nwould have been less severe had their helmets complied with\\nfederal safety standards and that the helmet defendants were\\nnegligent in their recall efforts. The Timms also asserted\\nclaims against Harley-Davidson, the motorcycle manufac-\\nturer, and Goodyear Dunlop (now known as Sumitomo Rub-\\nber USA), the tire manufacturer, contending that defects in the\\nmotorcycle and rear tire caused the accident.\\n Beginning with their helmets, the Timms pressed several\\nclaims, including design defect and manufacturing defect. To\\nshow that the helmets enhanced their injuries, the Timms em-\\nphasized the recall as well as the sheer severity of the injuries\\nthey sustained in the accident. But they did not present any\\nexpert testimony to show that, because of a defect with their\\nhelmets, their injuries were worse than they otherwise would\\nhave experienced in such a severe motorcycle crash. This\\nomission, the district court concluded, was fatal to their\\nclaims because “a lay juror would not be able to distinguish\\nbetween the injuries caused by the motorcycle accident and\\nthe enhanced injuries caused by the alleged defect in the hel-\\nmets without engaging in speculation.”\\n This conclusion, the district court reasoned, found support\\nin the fact that the helmet defendants offered their own med-\\nical expert, who opined that the Timms’ injuries were the type\\nhe would expect following such a serious motorcycle acci-\\ndent, even if they had been wearing helmets that complied\\n\\f4 No. 18-2641\\n\\nwith all safety standards. The court accordingly entered sum-\\nmary judgment in favor of the helmet defendants on the\\nTimms’ manufacturing and design defect claims. The court\\nalso entered judgment for the defendants on the Timms’\\nclaims alleging negligent recall and failure to comply with\\nfederal safety standards, concluding that the Indiana Prod-\\nucts Liability Act permits neither claim.\\n Turning to the allegations against Harley-Davidson and\\nGoodyear, the Timms asserted that the motorcycle’s rear tire\\n(a Dunlop D402 tire) was defective and unreasonably danger-\\nous because, following a puncture, it allowed for both exces-\\nsive air leakage and the tire to unseat—or come free—from its\\nrim. These defects, they maintained, caused Mr. Timm to lose\\ncontrol of the motorcycle and crash. The Timms further al-\\nleged that the motorcycle itself was defectively designed be-\\ncause it lacked a tire pressure monitoring system, which\\nwould have alerted Donald to the sudden loss of air in the tire\\nbefore he lost control. To support these claims, the Timms\\nproposed two experts: William Woehrle, a tire specialist, and\\nDr. Daniel Lee, an accident reconstructionist. In his report,\\nWoehrle opined on how and when the tire became unseated\\nfrom the rim and the need for a tire pressure monitoring sys-\\ntem. Dr. Lee likewise sought to testify about the ultimate\\ncause of the accident and to share his opinion that every mo-\\ntorcycle should be equipped with a tire pressure monitoring\\nsystem.\\n Harley-Davidson and Goodyear filed motions to exclude\\nWoehrle’s and Lee’s opinions, arguing they lacked the relia-\\nbility required by Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v.\\nMerrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Follow-\\ning a hearing, the district court agreed. The court concluded\\n\\fNo. 18-2641 5\\n\\nthat Woehrle’s opinion that manufacturing defects caused the\\ntire to unseat from the rim upon being punctured “appear[ed]\\nto be based on nothing more than his subjective belief and un-\\nsupported speculation,” and thus “fail[ed] to adhere to any of\\nthe Daubert guideposts.” The court also excluded Woehrle’s\\nopinion on the tire pressure monitoring system, reasoning\\nthat while Woehrle had expertise with respect to tires, he\\nlacked qualifications related to motorcycles more generally.\\nThe district court judge also determined that Woehrle’s opin-\\nions failed to comport with Rule 702 “because they [were] not\\nbased on scientifically valid methodologies.”\\n The court similarly excluded Dr. Lee’s testimony, finding\\nthat he lacked tire-related qualifications, and, in any event, his\\nmethodology with respect to both the tire defects and the tire\\npressure monitoring system lacked the reliability required by\\nDaubert.\\n Without expert testimony to support any of their claims,\\nthe court granted summary judgment for all defendants on all\\nof the Timms’ claims.\\n II\\n The Timms challenge the district court’s conclusions re-\\ngarding the need for expert testimony on their helmet claims\\nand the adequacy of their proposed expert testimony for their\\nmotorcycle and tire claims.\\n A\\n We begin with the helmet claims. While the Timms ini-\\ntially sued more than a dozen defendants, by summary judg-\\nment, only one corporate defendant remained—Nanal, Inc.\\nRecall that Nanal owns and operates the website where Mary\\nTimm purchased her helmet. Because Donald Timm\\n\\f6 No. 18-2641\\n\\npurchased his helmet on a different website, and thus not\\nfrom a supplier named as a defendant, we consider the helmet\\nclaims only with respect to Mary.\\n The parties agree that the Indiana Products Liability Act\\ngoverns the Timms’ claims. See Ind. Code § 34-20-1-1. Under\\nthe Act, “a plaintiff must prove that a product was placed into\\nthe stream of commerce in a defective condition unreasonably\\ndangerous to the user and that plaintiff's injuries were caused\\nby this dangerous product.” Campbell Hausfeld/Scott Fetzer Co.\\nv. Johnson, 109 N.E.3d 953, 956 (Ind. 2018).\\n The Timms contend that Mary’s helmet was unreasonably\\ndangerous within the meaning of the Act due to design and\\nmanufacturing defects and a related failure to warn. To sur-\\nvive summary judgment under each of these theories, Indiana\\nlaw required the Timms to show that the alleged defects prox-\\nimately caused Mary’s injuries. See Piltch v. Ford Motor Co.,\\n778 F.3d 628, 632 (7th Cir. 2015) (citing Ford Motor Co. v. Rush-\\nford, 868 N.E.2d 806, 810 (Ind. 2007)). The Timms sought to do\\nso by invoking the doctrine of “crashworthiness,” an ap-\\nproach to causation that “expands the proximate cause re-\\nquirement to include enhanced injuries” caused by a defective\\nproduct. Green v. Ford Motor Co., 942 N.E.2d 791, 793–94 (Ind.\\n2011) (quoting Miller v. Todd, 551 N.E.2d 1139, 1142 (Ind.\\n1990)). Put another way, the doctrine applies to situations\\nwhere, as here, the allegedly defective product did not cause\\nthe initial accident and any and all resulting injuries, but ra-\\nther increased or enhanced the severity of a plaintiff’s injuries.\\nSee id.\\n The Timms contend that Mary’s injuries from the crash\\nwere more severe than they would have been had her helmet\\nmet all federal safety regulations. To show that defects in the\\n\\fNo. 18-2641 7\\n\\nhelmet enhanced her injuries, the Timms presented the dis-\\ntrict court with her medical records. While this evidence cer-\\ntainly confirmed that Mary suffered very serious head injuries\\nin the accident, we agree with the district court that the rec-\\nords alone failed to distinguish those injuries that would have\\nresulted from any similar crash from any specific enhanced\\ninjuries Mary sustained as a result of the allegedly defective\\nhelmet. While plaintiffs are not always required to provide\\nexpert testimony to establish proximate causation, see U–Haul\\nInt’l., Inc. v. Nulls Machine & Mfg. Shop, 736 N.E.2d 271, 285 n.3\\n(Ind. Ct. App. 2000), the district court correctly concluded that\\nIndiana law required expert testimony here because distin-\\nguishing expected from enhanced injuries was an inquiry be-\\nyond the understanding of lay jurors, see Piltch, 778 F.3d at\\n632.\\n The district court’s reasoning finds sound support in our\\ncaselaw. We have previously held that when a plaintiff seeks\\nunder Indiana law to distinguish between ordinary and en-\\nhanced injuries, expert testimony is necessary to prevent the\\njury from engaging in guesswork. Id. at 634. In Piltch v. Ford\\nMotor Co., for example, the plaintiffs brought manufacturing\\nand design defect claims under the Indiana Products Liability\\nAct related to the air bags’ failure to deploy in a car accident.\\nSee id. Yet because the plaintiffs failed to present expert testi-\\nmony as to their injuries, we affirmed summary judgment in\\nfavor of the car manufacturer, explaining that without any ex-\\npert testimony, a “lay juror could not distinguish between the\\ninjuries caused by the collision and the enhanced injuries\\ncaused by the air bags' failure to deploy without engaging in\\npure speculation.” Id.\\n\\f8 No. 18-2641\\n\\n All agree that Mary Timm suffered severe injuries. But\\nwithout the assistance of an expert, a juror would be unable\\nto distinguish between those injuries caused by the crash—in\\nother words, the injuries anyone in this type of accident\\nwould have suffered—and any enhanced or more severe in-\\njuries caused by the defective helmet. Summary judgment\\nwas therefore proper on the Timms’ design defect and manu-\\nfacturing defect claims.\\n For the sake of completeness, we address the failure-to-\\nwarn claim the Timms advanced based on allegations that the\\ndefendants delayed issuing the helmet recall notice. The dis-\\ntrict court considered this a claim of negligent recall and en-\\ntered summary judgment for the helmet defendants because\\nit found no support for such claims under Indiana law. Be-\\ncause the Timms do not address this argument on appeal, we\\nconsider it waived. See Mahaffey v. Ramos, 588 F.3d 1142, 1146\\n(7th Cir. 2009) (declining to consider claims not adequately\\nbriefed).\\n B\\n The Timms next argue that summary judgment against\\nHarley-Davidson and Goodyear was improper because the\\ndistrict court erred in excluding the testimony of their experts,\\nWilliam Woehrle and Dr. Daniel Lee.\\n At the time of the accident, the Timms were traveling cross\\ncountry on their 2006 Harley-Davidson Ultra Classic Motor-\\ncycle. It is undisputed that the rear tire—manufactured by\\nGoodyear Dunlop and branded with the name Harley-Da-\\nvidson—was punctured by a road hazard and began to de-\\nflate, eventually unseating from its rim. The issue at the heart\\nof the Timms’ claims requires pinpointing exactly when the\\n\\fNo. 18-2641 9\\n\\nrubber unseated from the rim. For their part, the Timms con-\\ntend that the tire’s unseating occurred nearly instantly be-\\ncause of defects and, in turn, that the unseating caused Don-\\nald to lose control of the motorcycle and crash. The defend-\\nants urge a contrary view. They resist that the unseating im-\\nmediately followed the puncture and instead maintain that\\nthe motorcycle crash itself is what caused the tire to unseat\\nfrom the rim. The Timms rightly recognized that answering\\nthis causation question required expert testimony. Toward\\nthat end, they offered the opinions of Woehrle and Lee, which\\nthe district court ultimately excluded.\\n Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert govern the ad-\\nmissibility of expert testimony. Under this framework, a trial\\njudge, as a gatekeeping matter, is responsible for ensuring\\nthat proposed expert testimony “is not only relevant, but reli-\\nable.” Daubert, 509 U.S. at 589. In assessing reliability, “the\\nrole of the court is to determine whether the expert is qualified\\nin the relevant field and to examine the methodology the ex-\\npert has used in reaching his conclusions.” Smith v. Ford Motor\\nCo., 215 F.3d 713, 718 (7th Cir. 2000).\\n Although reliability must be assessed case by case, Daubert\\nidentified a non-exhaustive list of factors to aid the analysis.\\nRelevant considerations include not only whether the expert’s\\ntheory “can be (and has been) tested,” but also whether it has\\nbeen “subjected to peer review and publication.” 509 U.S. at\\n593. Other potential considerations include “the known or po-\\ntential rate of error” and whether the theory or technique has\\nachieved “general acceptance” in the relevant expert commu-\\nnity. Id. at 594–95. No one factor is dispositive, however, and\\n“the Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized [that] the\\nRule 702 test is a flexible one.” Smith, 215 F.3d at 719. The\\n\\f10 No. 18-2641\\n\\nCourt has likewise underscored that the correct inquiry fo-\\ncuses not on “the ultimate correctness of the expert’s conclu-\\nsions,” but rather on “the soundness and care with which the\\nexpert arrived at her opinion.” Schultz v. Akzo Nobel Paints,\\nLLC, 721 F.3d 426, 431 (7th Cir. 2013) (citing Daubert, 509 U.S.\\nat 595).\\n Faced as we are here with a challenge to a district court’s\\nexclusion of expert testimony, our review proceeds in two\\nsteps. We “review de novo whether a district judge has fol-\\nlowed Rule 702 and Daubert” and, if the court correctly “ap-\\nplied the Rule 702/Daubert framework, we [then] review [its]\\ndecision to admit or exclude expert testimony for abuse of dis-\\ncretion.” Haley v. Kolbe & Kolbe Millwork Co., 863 F.3d 600, 611\\n(7th Cir. 2017).\\n We find no errors here. In response to the defendants’ mo-\\ntions to exclude Woehrle’s and Lee’s testimony, the district\\ncourt held a Daubert hearing. The court used the hearing to\\nprobe Woehrle about the basis for his opinions, the method-\\nology he employed to formulate his theories, and the poten-\\ntial rate of error of his approach—all proper considerations\\nunder Rule 702 and Daubert. In its written decision, the court\\nfurther conveyed its understanding of the Rule and Daubert\\nfactors by accurately articulating them and proceeding to ap-\\nply them to Woehrle’s and Lee’s testimony and opinions. See\\nClark v. River Metals Recycling, 929 F.3d 434, 438 (7th Cir. 2019).\\nThere is no question the district court applied the correct evi-\\ndentiary framework.\\n Turning to the court’s rulings, we see no abuse of discre-\\ntion with the exclusion of Woehrle’s and Lee’s testimony. In\\nhis report and testimony, Woehrle posited that the Timms’\\nmotorcycle accident was the result of the tire unseating from\\n\\fNo. 18-2641 11\\n\\nits rim. He further opined that the unseating occurred because\\nthere was excess “flash” in the bead area (the edge of the tire\\nthat sits on the wheel rim) and insufficient rubber covering\\nthe chafer strip (a reinforcement of the bead area), which\\nweakened the fit between the tire and the rim. Woehrle testi-\\nfied that he arrived at this conclusion by conducting a physi-\\ncal examination of the tire and wheel. When pressed about his\\nmethodology, however, Woehrle conceded that he could\\npoint to no empirical data or controlled experiments to sup-\\nport his opinions. He further acknowledged that he had not\\ndone any testing to validate his opinion, was unaware of any\\nrelevant tests conducted by others, and knew of no way others\\ncould objectively replicate his approach.\\n On this evidence, the district court was well within its dis-\\ncretion to exclude Woerhle’s opinions about the cause of the\\ntire unseating. To satisfy the requirements of Rule 702 and\\nDaubert, Woerhle needed to show that his conclusions were\\nthe fruit of a rigorous, objectively-verifiable approach—some-\\nthing more than mere speculation. While Woerhle may well\\nhave had the experience and knowledge to make this show-\\ning, he failed to do so. All of this leads to underscore anew\\nthat even a “supremely qualified expert cannot waltz into the\\ncourtroom and render opinions unless those opinions are\\nbased upon some recognized scientific method.” Smith, 215\\nF.3d at 718 (quoting Clark v. Takata Corp., 192 F.3d 750, 759 n.5\\n(7th Cir. 1999)). The record amply supports the district court’s\\nconclusion that the Timms failed to establish that Woehrle’s\\nopinions were sufficiently reliable.\\n Nor do we see any abuse of discretion in the district\\ncourt’s exclusion of Dr. Lee’s opinions regarding the cause of\\nthe crash. In his report, Dr. Lee opined that Mr. Timm lost\\n\\f12 No. 18-2641\\n\\ncontrol of the motorcycle because the rear tire started to\\n“hop.” This hopping, Lee maintained, was the result of the\\ntire unseating from the rim. In addition to questioning Lee’s\\nqualifications with respect to the functioning of tires and how\\nthey can unseat from a rim, the district court concluded that\\nLee’s methodology did not comport with Daubert because Lee\\nfailed to point to any test replicating the conditions under\\nwhich the rubber beading would have come unseated or any\\ntesting to support his theory that bead unseating would cause\\na motorcycle to hop. Lee likewise failed to identify any scien-\\ntific literature to support his opinion. In the absence of any-\\nthing to support his conclusions, the district court acted\\nwithin its discretion in excluding Dr. Lee’s opinions about the\\ncause of the unseating.\\n Finally, we consider the court’s exclusion of Woehrle’s\\nand Lee’s testimony regarding the tire pressure monitoring\\nsystem. The Timms alleged that the motorcycle was defec-\\ntively designed because it should have been equipped with\\nsuch a monitoring system. They sought to support this claim\\nwith testimony from both Woehrle and Lee, who opined that\\nthe accident would not have happened if the motorcycle came\\nequipped with such a system.\\n The district court concluded that neither expert possessed\\nthe requisite qualifications to offer such testimony. Here, too,\\nwe find no abuse of discretion. Though Woehrle has expertise\\nwith the design and operation of tires, the record supports the\\ndistrict court’s conclusion that this knowledge and experience\\ndoes not extend to motorcycles. Indeed, Woehrle himself\\nacknowledged that he is not an expert in the design of tire\\npressure monitoring systems for motorcycles and he has\\nnever conducted any research on this topic. While the court\\n\\fNo. 18-2641 13\\n\\nrecognized that Dr. Lee did have significant experience with\\nmotorcycles, Lee testified during his deposition that he lacked\\nfamiliarity with tire pressure monitoring systems. Given this\\nadmission, the district court’s assessment of Lee’s qualifica-\\ntions—and its decision to exclude his testimony—reflected no\\nabuse of discretion.\\n Because the Timms’ manufacturing and design defect\\nclaims against Harley-Davidson and Goodyear rested on\\nWoehrle’s and Lee’s testimony, the district court’s evidentiary\\nrulings defeated those claims. The same evidentiary shortfalls\\ndefeated the Timms’ claim based on a failure to warn.\\n * * *\\n What happened here was tragic. Donald and Mary Timm\\nsuffered extremely serious injuries in an extremely serious\\nmotorcycle accident. We have no doubt that these injuries\\nhave impacted their lives in substantial and lasting ways.\\nWhat we cannot say, though, is that the district court commit-\\nted any error in rejecting their legal claims. So we are left to\\nAFFIRM.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3797,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4645957,"string":"4,645,957"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Randall Goulding v. Leslie Weiss"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-08-06"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-1791"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before SYKES, SCUDDER, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"No. 1:12-cv-7373 - Joan Humphrey Lefkow, Judge\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\n\\n\\nNos. 18-1740 & 18-1791\\nMICHAEL ALONSO, individually and derivatively on behalf of\\nNUTMEG/MERCURY FUND, LLP (hereinafter within this caption\\nMERCURY FUND, LLP), et al.,\\n Plaintiffs-Appellants,\\n and\\n\\nRANDALL S. GOULDING,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n\\n v.\\n\\nLESLIE J. WEISS and BARNES & THORNBURG,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeals from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 1:12-cv-7373 — Joan Humphrey Lefkow, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED APRIL 11, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 6, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before SYKES, SCUDDER, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.\\n\\f2 Nos. 18-1740 & 18-1791\\n\\n SCUDDER, Circuit Judge. This appeal centers on the perfor-\\nmance of the court-appointed receiver of financial advisory\\nfirm Nutmeg Group, LLC. The district court appointed the re-\\nceiver after the Securities and Exchange Commission initiated\\nan enforcement action against Nutmeg and its managing\\nmember, Randall Goulding. Against the Commission’s alle-\\ngations of ongoing fraud and misappropriation of client as-\\nsets, the district court presiding over the SEC matter entered\\na temporary restraining order prohibiting Goulding from op-\\nerating Nutmeg and appointed a receiver to oversee all as-\\npects of the firm’s business.\\n This civil suit followed. Goulding and a group of limited\\npartners in one or more of the Nutmeg funds alleged that the\\nreceiver breached her fiduciary duties and, in doing so, re-\\nduced the value of the funds’ assets. After dismissing certain\\ncounts, the district court entered summary judgment in the\\nreceiver’s favor on all remaining claims. Because we agree\\nthat no reasonable jury could find that the receiver engaged\\nin a willful, deliberate, or even grossly negligent breach of a\\nfiduciary duty, we affirm.\\n I\\n A\\n Nutmeg Group, LLC, formerly managed by Randall\\nGoulding, served as an investment advisor and sole general\\npartner of more than a dozen investment funds, which we\\nwill refer to collectively as the Funds. Each of the constituent\\nfunds is a limited partnership under Illinois or Minnesota\\nlaw. With Goulding at the helm, Nutmeg executed transac-\\ntions on behalf of the Funds and oversaw their investment\\nstrategies. Goulding’s management of the Funds ended in\\n\\fNos. 18-1740 & 18-1791 3\\n\\n2009, when the SEC brought an enforcement action against\\nhim, Nutmeg, and others in the Northern District of Illinois,\\nalleging violations of the Investment Advisors Act of 1940.\\nThe thrust of the Commission’s complaint was that Nutmeg\\nmisappropriated client assets and failed to maintain proper\\nrecords. See SEC v. Nutmeg Grp., LLC, No. 09 C 1775, 2011 WL\\n5042094 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 19, 2011).\\n The district court handling the SEC action found that the\\nCommission made the showing necessary to warrant the is-\\nsuance of a restraining order prohibiting Goulding from man-\\naging the Funds. The court also granted the SEC’s unopposed\\nmotion to appoint attorney Leslie Weiss as receiver for Nut-\\nmeg. The appointment order granted Weiss the authority to\\n“oversee all aspects of Nutmeg’s operations and business,”\\nincluding “serving as general partner and investment advi-\\nsor” to the Funds. It also provided that, as receiver, Weiss was\\n“solely the agent of [the] [c]ourt,” and should continue Nut-\\nmeg’s business “in such manner, to such extent, and for such\\nduration as [she] may in the exercise of her business judgment\\nand in good faith deem to be necessary or appropriate.” The\\norder directed Weiss to file regular status reports with the dis-\\ntrict court detailing her acts as receiver.\\n The appointment order separately addressed Weiss’s lia-\\nbility, broadly providing that Weiss and any professionals she\\nretained would not be held liable to anyone “for their own\\ngood faith compliance with any order, rule, law, judgment, or\\ndecree.” The order added that neither Weiss nor any retained\\npersonnel would be held liable “with respect to the perfor-\\nmance of their duties and responsibilities as Receiver and Re-\\ntained Personnel . . . except upon a finding by [the district]\\n[c]ourt that they acted or failed to act as a result of\\n\\f4 Nos. 18-1740 & 18-1791\\n\\nmalfeasance, bad faith, gross negligence or in reckless disre-\\ngard of their duties.”\\n B\\n Following her appointment, Weiss submitted the required\\nstatus reports to the district court. In her first report, she\\nbroadly shared the results of her initial due diligence. She in-\\nformed the court of her review of the Funds’ assets, which in-\\ncluded convertible notes (many of which were in default);\\nlawsuits or judgments against borrowers who had defaulted\\non their notes or refused to convert notes to stocks; and\\n“shells” of failed borrower companies that Nutmeg or the\\nFunds had recovered when the companies defaulted on their\\ndebt. Weiss also reported on her efforts to assess the collecta-\\nbility of any outstanding judgments, while also conveying her\\nconcern that some of the notes’ issuers were not financially\\nstable. In time Weiss submitted additional reports informing\\nthe district court of particular developments and challenges\\nshe was encountering as well as decisions she was making as\\nreceiver.\\n To further fulfill her duties, Weiss sought assistance from\\ninvestment advisors and attorneys. For example, in addition\\nto retaining Barnes & Thornburg, the law firm where she is a\\npartner, Weiss hired McClendon, Morrison & Partners, LLC\\nas an investment advisor. She also consulted with a collection\\nfirm regarding the collectability of certain judgments against\\nborrowers who had defaulted on their notes.\\n Unsatisfied with Weiss’s performance as receiver, Gould-\\ning and a group of limited partners from certain funds man-\\naged by Nutmeg filed an individual and derivative action on\\nbehalf of the Funds. The complaint named as defendants\\n\\fNos. 18-1740 & 18-1791 5\\n\\nWeiss, Barnes & Thornburg, Nutmeg, and the Funds, and al-\\nleged state-law claims for breach of fiduciary duty and legal\\nmalpractice. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that Weiss\\nbreached her fiduciary duties as receiver, including under Il-\\nlinois’s and Minnesota’s partnership statutes, by failing to\\npursue certain opportunities to the detriment of one or more\\nof the Funds and, separately, by not converting certain debt\\nowed to Nutmeg or a particular fund into stock to be sold on\\nthe open market. The plaintiffs also brought a federal claim\\npursuant to the Investment Advisors Act of 1940 and SEC\\nRule 206(4)-2.\\n For their part, Weiss and Barnes & Thornburg filed a mo-\\ntion to dismiss, which the district court granted in part. The\\ncourt dismissed the plaintiffs’ federal securities law claim as\\nwell as several other counts in an amended complaint, includ-\\ning all claims against Nutmeg, all legal malpractice claims\\nagainst Weiss and Barnes & Thornburg, and two breach of fi-\\nduciary duty claims against Weiss. These dismissals are not at\\nissue on appeal.\\n Weiss and Barnes & Thornburg then successfully moved\\nfor summary judgment on the remaining seventeen counts. In\\na detailed and thorough opinion, the district court assessed\\neach of the plaintiffs’ allegations, concluding that even when\\nviewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, no reason-\\nable jury could find that either Weiss or Barnes & Thornburg\\nwillfully and deliberately violated any fiduciary duties. On\\nappeal the plaintiffs challenge the district court’s ruling on se-\\nlect claims advanced against Weiss.\\n\\f6 Nos. 18-1740 & 18-1791\\n\\n II\\n A\\n We begin with a brief word on our appellate jurisdiction.\\nWe do so because the plaintiffs’ amended complaint named\\nnot only Weiss and Barnes & Thornburg as defendants, but\\nalso Nutmeg and the Funds. The district court’s final judg-\\nment did not address the Funds, however.\\n We nonetheless agree with the parties that the district\\ncourt’s judgment constituted a final and appealable judgment\\nunder 28 U.S.C. § 1291. First, although the amended com-\\nplaint named 13 separate funds as defendants, the plaintiffs\\ndid not assert any claims against these entities or seek any re-\\nlief from them. More to it, the summary judgment order, by\\nits terms, expressly resolved all claims in the district court. See\\nBaltimore Orioles, Inc. v. Major League Baseball Players Ass'n, 805\\nF.2d 663, 666 (7th Cir. 1986) (explaining that “a decision is fi-\\nnal for the purpose of § 1291 if it ends the litigation on the\\nmerits and leaves nothing for the district court to do but exe-\\ncute the judgment”). In these circumstances, our appellate ju-\\nrisdiction is secure.\\n And this is so despite ongoing proceedings in the district\\ncourt in the underlying SEC enforcement action. The docket\\nshows that the parties consented to a bench trial before a mag-\\nistrate judge in January 2018. They are awaiting a decision.\\nWe have no reason to believe any outcome of the bench trial\\nwill affect this appeal, however.\\n\\fNos. 18-1740 & 18-1791 7\\n\\n B\\n We turn next to the standard of liability governing the\\nplaintiffs’ state-law claims for breach of fiduciary duty. The\\nplaintiffs assert that Minnesota and Illinois law apply because\\neach of the funds is either a Minnesota or Illinois limited part-\\nnership. With both states having adopted the Uniform Lim-\\nited Partnership Act—and the plaintiffs not identifying any\\nconflict in the states’ respective interpretations of the Act—\\nour analysis proceeds by applying Illinois law. We would\\nreach the same conclusions under Minnesota law.\\n To recover for a breach of fiduciary duty, Illinois law re-\\nquired the plaintiffs to establish the existence of a fiduciary\\nduty, a breach of that duty, and damages proximately caused\\nby the breach. See Gross v. Town of Cicero, Ill., 619 F.3d 697, 709\\n(7th Cir. 2010). On this much the parties agree. From there,\\nhowever, they dispute the substantive standard to which\\nWeiss should be held when assessing whether she breached\\nher fiduciary duties as receiver.\\n The district court relied on our 1985 decision in In re Chi-\\ncago Pacific Corp. and determined that, to hold a court-ap-\\npointed receiver personally liable, the plaintiffs must show\\nthat Weiss engaged in a “willful and deliberate” violation of\\nher fiduciary duties. 773 F.2d 909, 915 (7th Cir. 1985) (citing\\nMosser v. Darrow, 341 U.S. 267, 272 (1951) and Sherr v. Winkler,\\n552 F.2d 1367, 1375 (10th Cir. 1977)). In this way, the district\\ncourt effectively saw the Illinois state-law standard of liability\\nas mirroring the federal willful and deliberate standard an-\\nnounced by the Supreme Court in the bankruptcy context in\\nMosser v. Darrow, see 341 U.S. at 272, which we, in turn, have\\napplied in cases involving alleged breaches of duty by bank-\\nruptcy trustees. See, e.g., Grochocinski v. Mayer Brown Rowe &\\n\\f8 Nos. 18-1740 & 18-1791\\n\\nMaw, LLP, 719 F.3d 785, 800 (7th Cir. 2013); In re Chicago Pac.\\nCorp., 773 F.2d at 915.\\n The plaintiffs contend that the federal benchmark sets the\\nliability bar too high. By their measure, the lesser gross negli-\\ngence standard that the Illinois legislature made applicable to\\nthe acts of all general partners reflects the proper rule of deci-\\nsion. See 805 ILCS 215/408(c); see also Minn. Stat.\\n§ 321.0408(c). This is especially so, the plaintiffs urge, because\\nthe district court order appointing Weiss as receiver expressly\\nstated that she could be held liable upon a showing of gross\\nnegligence.\\n The plaintiffs have some, but not all, of the analysis right.\\nThey are right, of course, that they brought claims under Illi-\\nnois (and Minnesota) law. They are equally right, as a matter\\nof subject matter jurisdiction, that the doctrine of ancillary ju-\\nrisdiction permitted them to bring these claims against Weiss,\\na federally-appointed receiver, in the same federal court pre-\\nsiding over the SEC action, here, the Northern District of Illi-\\nnois. See, e.g., Robinson v. Michigan Consolidated Gas Co. Inc.,\\n918 F.2d 579, 586 (6th Cir. 1990) (quoting C. WRIGHT & A.\\nMILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 2985 at 45) (“It\\nis well settled that ‘actions against a receiver arising out of his\\nconduct of the receivership business may be brought in the\\nappointing court even though there may not be any inde-\\npendent grounds for asserting federal jurisdiction.’”).\\n This case presents a slight wrinkle. Ordinarily in the re-\\nceivership context, the exercise of ancillary jurisdiction would\\nentail the same district judge responsible for the SEC matter\\n(here, Judge Coleman) also hearing any claims asserted\\nagainst a court-appointed receiver. Here the record shows\\nthat the plaintiffs sought permission to file claims against the\\n\\fNos. 18-1740 & 18-1791 9\\n\\nreceiver and her appointed counsel in the Northern District of\\nIllinois and Judge Coleman appropriately authorized the re-\\nquest. But a different judge, Judge Lefkow, ultimately han-\\ndled the plaintiffs’ ancillary claims. We can view all of this as\\nreasonably occurring as part of the Northern District’s case\\nmanagement following the death of Judge Hibbler, the dis-\\ntrict judge who had presided over the SEC enforcement action\\nsince its inception. In these circumstances, we agree with the\\nplaintiffs that the district court properly exercised ancillary\\njurisdiction over the claims challenging Weiss’s performance\\nas a court-appointed receiver. For her part, Weiss too agrees\\nthat the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over the\\nplaintiffs’ claims.\\n Turning to the claims themselves, we agree with the plain-\\ntiffs that state law, and not federal bankruptcy law or federal\\ncommon law, supplies the controlling standard of fiduciary\\ncare. See 28 U.S.C. § 959(b) (stating that a court-appointed re-\\nceiver “shall manage and operate the property in his posses-\\nsion as such trustee, receiver or manager according to the re-\\nquirements of the valid laws of the State in which such prop-\\nerty is situated, in the same manner that the owner or posses-\\nsor thereof would be bound to do if in possession thereof”).\\n Where we part ways with the plaintiffs is in their insist-\\nence that Weiss had to abide by the ordinary gross negligence\\nstandard that both governs general partners under Illinois\\n(and Minnesota) law and appears in the receivership appoint-\\nment order. Put another way, the plaintiffs see Weiss as a gen-\\neral partner, albeit court-appointed, who should be held to\\nthe run-of-the-mill general partner standard of liability under\\nIllinois law. If only the analysis was so straightforward.\\n\\f10 Nos. 18-1740 & 18-1791\\n\\n As a threshold matter, it is far from clear that the district\\ncourt, in appointing Weiss as receiver, made her the general\\npartner of the Funds. The appointment order, to be sure, au-\\nthorized Weiss to “oversee all aspects of Nutmeg’s operations,\\nwhich include, but are not limited to, serving as general part-\\nner and investment advisor” to the Funds. While this lan-\\nguage makes plain that Weiss acquired the authority held in\\nthe ordinary course by a fund’s general partner, this is not the\\nsame as making Weiss a general partner for any and all pur-\\nposes, including for personal liability for a breach of a fiduci-\\nary duty such that ordinary state partnership statutes should\\napply.\\n This conclusion is underscored by the fact that the ap-\\npointment of Weiss as receiver was far from an ordinary-\\ncourse event—indeed, it came upon a finding by the district\\ncourt that Nutmeg, as the sole general partner of the Funds,\\nand Goulding, as Nutmeg’s managing partner, had engaged\\nin substantial malfeasance. What is more, the order appoint-\\ning Weiss did not put her only in the former shoes of Nutmeg\\nand Goulding. To the contrary, Weiss was appointed not as a\\nfiduciary of any particular fund but instead “solely [as] the\\nagent of th[e] Court in acting as Receiver,” and charged with\\nthe broad responsibility of “tak[ing] such action necessary\\nand appropriate to prevent the dissipation or concealment of\\nany funds or assets constituting Receivership Property and\\notherwise preserve any such funds and assets.”\\n To identify the proper rule or decision, we need to ask\\nwhat standard of fiduciary care Illinois courts have adopted,\\nnot for ordinary general partners, but in the context of a court-\\nappointed receiver. If Illinois caselaw does not supply the an-\\nswer, the question becomes what standard the Illinois\\n\\fNos. 18-1740 & 18-1791 11\\n\\nSupreme Court would adopt if presented with the issue. See\\nIn re Zimmer, NextGen Knee Implant Products Liab. Litig., 884\\nF.3d 746, 751 (7th Cir. 2018) (collecting authorities and ex-\\nplaining that a federal court’s task in applying state law is to\\ndetermine how the state’s highest court would rule and,\\nwhere a state’s courts have yet to address the question, to ex-\\namine the law in other jurisdictions to discern the probable\\ndirection of the state law at issue).\\n Our research has identified no Illinois case addressing the\\nquestion. But that observation does not lead to a dead end. In\\npredicting what standard of liability the Illinois Supreme\\nCourt would adopt, we have every reason to believe the court\\nwould see a court-appointed receiver as just that—as an indi-\\nvidual serving not as an ordinary fiduciary or general partner,\\nbut instead at a federal court’s direction to fulfill unique re-\\nsponsibilities. Here that would mean treating Weiss as a re-\\nceiver appointed to oversee and to protect the assets of at least\\n13 limited partnerships in the wake of a federal district court\\nfinding substantial misconduct by Nutmeg and its former\\nmanaging partner.\\n Informed by our decision in Chicago Pacific Corp., we be-\\nlieve the Illinois Supreme Court would arrive at the willful\\nand deliberate standard of personal liability for a court-ap-\\npointed receiver. See 773 F.2d at 915. This heightened stand-\\nard of liability roots itself in the Supreme Court’s 1951 deci-\\nsion in Mosser and accounts for the context in which a receiver\\nis operating. The standard recognizes that if a receiver is “bur-\\ndened with having to defend against suits by litigants disap-\\npointed by his actions on the court’s behalf, his work for the\\ncourt will be impeded.” Matter of Linton, 136 F.3d 544, 545 (7th\\nCir. 1998). So too does this standard reflect the reality that\\n\\f12 Nos. 18-1740 & 18-1791\\n\\nreceivers are often appointed to take charge of entities with\\nwhich they have had no prior involvement: imposing per-\\nsonal liability for mistakes in business judgment could dis-\\ncourage competent individuals from acting as receivers.\\nGiven the clarity and reasons supporting this standard in our\\ncaselaw—developed, to be sure, in the analogous bankruptcy\\ncontext—we conclude that the Illinois Supreme Court most\\nlikely would chart the same course as a matter of Illinois law.\\n The practical considerations warranting a heightened lia-\\nbility standard are far from fiction here. Take, for example, the\\nobservations the district court made in the underlying SEC\\nmatter. Judge Hibbler went out of his way to warn that\\n“Goulding’s obstinacy in the underlying litigation demon-\\nstrates an animosity towards the Receiver and provides fur-\\nther pause to be wary of any purported claim he might raise\\nagainst the Receiver, particularly in the absence of even a scin-\\ntilla of evidence that the Receiver acted in bad faith.” SEC v.\\nNutmeg Grp., LLC, No. 09 C 1775, 2011 WL 5042092, at *4 (N.D.\\nIll. Oct. 19, 2011). In much the same vein, Judge Hibbler ob-\\nserved that “[t]o say that Goulding has been uncooperative\\nwith the Receiver is to understate his recalcitrance.” Id.\\n In the end, we believe the Illinois Supreme Court would\\nrequire a showing that Weiss willfully and deliberately vio-\\nlated her fiduciary duties before imposing judgment for per-\\nsonal liability. Under this standard, the plaintiffs must show\\nthat Weiss intentionally took actions she knew violated her fi-\\nduciary duties. See, e.g., Petrovic v. Dep't of Employment Secu-\\nrity, 2016 IL 118562, ¶ 30–31 (defining “deliberate and willful”\\nin the context of the Illinois Unemployment Insurance Act as\\n“conscious act[s] made in violation of company rules, when\\nthe employee knows it is against the rules”); see also Levy v.\\n\\fNos. 18-1740 & 18-1791 13\\n\\nMarkal Sales Corp., 268 Ill. App. 3d 355, 380 (1st Dist. 1994)\\n(finding a “willful breach of a fiduciary duty” based on evi-\\ndence that corporate directors engaged in acts that were\\n“lacking in good faith, underhanded, deceitful and sly”).\\n Even if our prediction is mistaken, however, all agree that\\nIllinois law, at the very least, would hold Weiss to a standard\\nof gross negligence. See 805 ILCS 215/408(c). And the plain-\\ntiffs are quick to remind that this same gross negligence\\nstandard appears in the district court’s order appointing\\nWeiss as receiver in the first instance. Fair enough. It is cer-\\ntainly possible, especially as a matter of comity, that the Illi-\\nnois Supreme Court would inform its identification and defi-\\nnition of the controlling liability standard by the standard ap-\\npearing in the order appointing Weiss as receiver.\\n Under a gross negligence standard, the plaintiffs could not\\nrecover absent a showing that Weiss acted in her capacity as\\nreceiver with “reckless indifference to or deliberate disregard\\nof” her duties or that her actions were “without the bounds of\\nreason.” Sherman v. Ryan, 392 Ill. App. 3d 712, 732 (1st Dist.\\n2009) (quoting Benihana of Tokyo, Inc. v. Benihana, Inc., 891 A.2d\\n150, 192 (Del. Ch. 2005)).\\n We can stop short of staking out a more definitive position\\non the substantive liability standard, however. As our ensuing\\nanalysis shows, the district court properly determined that\\nthe record evidence required entry of summary judgment for\\nWeiss. This is so, we conclude, whether we apply the height-\\nened willful and deliberate standard or the lesser gross negli-\\ngence standard.\\n\\f14 Nos. 18-1740 & 18-1791\\n\\n III\\n The plaintiffs challenge the entry of summary judgment\\non sixteen distinct claims alleging that Weiss breached her fi-\\nduciary duties by failing to take certain actions like bringing\\nlawsuits, enforcing notes, converting debt owed to Nutmeg or\\none or another of its funds into stock, or entering into certain\\ntransactions.\\n We pause to highlight that, based on our review of the\\nbriefs, the plaintiffs do not challenge any aspect of the district\\ncourt’s rulings on the claims asserted against Barnes & Thorn-\\nburg. Accordingly, this appeal proceeds only as to the plain-\\ntiffs’ challenge to the district court’s resolution of claims\\nagainst Weiss as receiver. See Mahaffey v. Ramos, 588 F.3d 1142,\\n1146 (7th Cir. 2009) (declining to consider claims not ade-\\nquately briefed).\\n As to those claims, we review the district court’s grant of\\nsummary judgment de novo, construing all facts and drawing\\nall reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs’ favor as the non-\\nmoving party. See Van den Bosch v. Raemisch, 658 F.3d 778, 785\\n(7th Cir. 2011).\\n A\\n We begin with the plaintiffs’ claims challenging Weiss’s\\ndecisions to pursue or decline certain opportunities on behalf\\nof Nutmeg. As the plaintiffs see it, Weiss breached her fiduci-\\nary duties by failing to pursue certain litigation and by failing\\nto enforce certain judgments and promissory notes. The dis-\\ntrict court carefully considered and rejected this category of\\nclaims, and we see no error in its analysis. A few examples\\nsuffice to explain why.\\n\\fNos. 18-1740 & 18-1791 15\\n\\n Consider Count V. The plaintiffs alleged that Weiss\\nbreached her duties by failing to enforce a $2.7 million judg-\\nment held by a particular Nutmeg fund against an entity\\ncalled RMD Entertainment Group. While the plaintiffs assert\\nthat Weiss made no effort to settle or collect the judgment, the\\ndistrict court saw the facts otherwise. Instead, the court ex-\\nplained, the evidence demonstrates that Weiss investigated\\nthe collectability of the judgment by contacting RMD and\\nlearning not only that Nutmeg’s judgment may be defective,\\nbut also that RMD had no assets in the United States. But\\nWeiss did not stop at RMD’s word. She went further by con-\\nsulting a collection agency, which confirmed that RMD was\\njudgment proof. She then conveyed this information to the\\ndistrict court handling the SEC matter, explaining that she\\nhad contacted third parties to inquire about their interest in\\npurchasing the judgment but was unable to find a buyer. The\\nplaintiffs, although plainly disagreeing with Weiss’s business\\njudgment, did not show that this diligence never occurred. So,\\neven when viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs,\\nthe record shows that Weiss took steps to collect on this judg-\\nment and ultimately decided it was not worth pursuing. The\\ndistrict court was on sound footing concluding that no rea-\\nsonable jury could find that Weiss willfully or even recklessly\\nbreached her fiduciary duties.\\n Similarly, in Count XI, the plaintiffs alleged that Weiss\\nbreached her fiduciary duties by failing to follow Goulding’s\\nadvice and “d[oing] nothing” to monetize a defaulted con-\\nvertible note issued by North Bay Resources. But here, too, we\\nsee the evidence much the same way as the district court. The\\nrecord shows that Weiss contacted North Bay and explained\\nthat, based on Nutmeg’s records, she believed the firm still\\nowed on the note. North Bay disagreed, taking the position\\n\\f16 Nos. 18-1740 & 18-1791\\n\\nthat the note had been satisfied with shares issued to Nutmeg.\\nIn a sworn declaration, Weiss explained that, based on her\\ndue diligence, she made the decision not to expend further\\nresources to pursue a claim against North Bay. An informed\\ndecision not to move forward with a particular course of ac-\\ntion falls short of demonstrating a willful and deliberate (or,\\nfor that matter, a grossly negligent) violation of her duties.\\n We likewise agree with the district court that Count VII\\n(the plaintiffs’ third failure to enforce claim) and Counts X,\\nXIV, and XVI (relating to lawsuits on behalf of the Funds) fail\\nfor the same reasons. In each instance, the evidence shows\\nthat Weiss investigated the potential claims or litigation op-\\nportunities, considered the strengths and weaknesses of avail-\\nable options, and weighed the costs of pursuing certain op-\\nportunities before exercising her business judgment. The\\nplaintiffs, while vigorously disagreeing with Weiss’s deci-\\nsions, did not bring forth evidence to show that a jury could\\nfind that those decisions reflected a willful, deliberate, or\\ngrossly negligent breach of her fiduciary duties.\\n B\\n The plaintiffs also brought a series of claims (in Counts VI,\\nVIII, and XVII) alleging that Weiss breached her duties by fail-\\ning to convert debt owed to Nutmeg or to certain funds into\\nstock to be sold on the open market. Here again, though, the\\ndistrict court got it right in concluding that the record evi-\\ndence requires a contrary conclusion.\\n The plaintiffs allege three instances where, as they would\\nhave it, Weiss should have converted certain debt to stock and\\nthen liquidated the equity at a profit. For example, the plain-\\ntiffs contend that Weiss breached her duties by settling a\\n\\fNos. 18-1740 & 18-1791 17\\n\\n$50,000 note owed by an entity named GoIP Global, rather\\nthan exercising a right to convert the note to stock. Yet even if\\nwe credit the plaintiffs’ view that it was both feasible and ad-\\nvantageous for Weiss to convert the GoIP debt and sell the\\nstock, we agree with the district court that the plaintiffs’ alle-\\ngations, at most, support an inference that Weiss exercised\\npoor judgment. But a poor business decision falls well short\\nof demonstrating either a willful and deliberate or even a\\ngrossly negligent breach of her duties.\\n At a more specific level, the record shows that Weiss did\\nconvert some of the GoIP debt and tried to convert the re-\\nmainder, only to find GoIP non-responsive. She then sought,\\nreceived, and followed professional investment advice about\\nwhat to do with the remaining debt. Even viewing the facts in\\nthe plaintiffs’ strongest favor, we cannot conclude that Weiss\\ncame anywhere close to willfully, deliberately, or even negli-\\ngently offending her fiduciary obligations: she retained—and\\nsought guidance from—an investment advisory firm, and\\nwhen faced with two choices, she chose the option advised by\\nthe firm. Absent from the record are facts showing that Weiss\\nintended to harm the Funds by settling the GoIP debt rather\\nthan undertaking conversion and liquidation transactions.\\nAnd the record shows the same level of diligence as to the\\nfacts underlying the allegations in Counts VIII and XVII.\\n C\\n The plaintiffs also devote substantial attention to three\\nspecific claims against the receiver. Once again, though, the\\ndistrict court properly saw no genuine issue of material fact\\npertinent to these claims.\\n\\f18 Nos. 18-1740 & 18-1791\\n\\n First, in Count IV, the plaintiffs allege that Weiss breached\\nher fiduciary duties by failing to receive court approval to pay\\nany fees exceeding a $150,000 cap imposed by the district\\ncourt to Crowe Horwath, the accounting firm that advised her\\nin the execution of her receivership responsibilities. While it\\nis undisputed that Weiss incurred $168,000 in advisory fees\\nbeyond the cap, we agree with the district court that no rea-\\nsonable jury could find that her doing so reflected an inten-\\ntional breach of her fiduciary duties. The court handling the\\nSEC matter appointed Crowe Horwath before Weiss became\\nreceiver and explicitly authorized her to continue using the\\nfirm. The record also shows that Crowe Horwath estimated\\nits fees at $168,000 to complete its outstanding work. Weiss\\nshared this information with the district court and kept the\\ncourt informed of what Crowe Horwath was doing, why the\\nwork was needed, and how much it would cost. She also\\nheeded the court’s instruction to take a “conservative ap-\\nproach” by submitting payment requests in installments as\\nCrowe performed its work. While it is clear that the plaintiffs\\nbelieve Crowe Horwath’s work was unnecessary, what is\\nmissing is evidence showing that Weiss’s continued use of\\nCrowe’s services reflected a willful, deliberate, or grossly neg-\\nligent flouting of the district court’s directions or her fiduciary\\nduties. Indeed, neither the district court overseeing the SEC\\nmatter nor the Commission itself took issue with Weiss’s han-\\ndling of the additional payments for Crowe Horwath’s ser-\\nvices.\\n Second, in Count IX, the plaintiffs allege that Weiss\\nbreached her fiduciary duties by terminating a transaction\\nthat would have enabled Inverso Corp., a corporate shell\\nowned by several Nutmeg funds, to be used as a vehicle for\\nan initial public offering. Notably, however, in the SEC’s\\n\\fNos. 18-1740 & 18-1791 19\\n\\nmotion to appoint Weiss as receiver, the Commission flagged\\nthe Inverso deal and directed Weiss to review it. Upon doing\\nso Weiss chose to halt the transaction because it “reeked of a\\nscam.” In her sworn declarations, Weiss provided a detailed\\nexplanation of why she did not approve the transaction: she\\nquestioned its legitimacy and determined the business plan\\nwas implausible because, among other things, it projected In-\\nverso would gain 5% of the global market share for multiple\\nsclerosis treatment in just two years and 5% of global cancer\\ntreatment revenues in just four years with a budget of only a\\nfew million dollars. No evidence suggests Weiss formed these\\nviews on a whim or held them in willful or deliberate (or\\ngrossly negligent) disregard of her duties as receiver.\\n Third, Count XIX alleged that Weiss breached her fiduciary\\nduties by expending attorneys’ fees on a frivolous motion to\\nshow cause. In April 2010, in the SEC matter, Weiss filed a mo-\\ntion for an order to show cause against Goulding for his fail-\\nure to cooperate with her. She pointed to 11 different in-\\nstances of his noncooperation, one of which involved locating\\nevidence of investor approval to modify the operating agree-\\nment for the Nutmeg/Mercury LLP Fund. As it turned out,\\nhowever, Weiss already had the relevant documents in the\\nfiles seized from Nutmeg. Goulding reacted to learning of this\\nmistake by urging the district court in the SEC case to sanction\\nWeiss. The district court denied the motion, explaining that\\nthere was “no evidence of an intentional fraud, concealment\\nor conspiracy” on Weiss’s part and because “there [was] no\\nsuggestion that all of the other issues raised in the [r]eceiver’s\\nmotion also were without merit.” We see no error with this\\nconclusion.\\n\\f20 Nos. 18-1740 & 18-1791\\n\\n IV\\n The plaintiffs’ amended complaints and arguments on ap-\\npeal are expansive. Based upon our review of the record and\\nthe parties’ briefs, we have focused only on those claims that\\nwe believe warrant discussion. But our ultimate conclusion—\\nthat no reasonable jury could find that Weiss engaged in a\\nwillful, deliberate, or even grossly negligent breach of a fidu-\\nciary duty—applies with equal force to the totality of the\\nplaintiffs’ claims on appeal. For these reasons, we AFFIRM.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4423210/\", \"author_raw\": \"No. 1:12-cv-7373 - Joan Humphrey Lefkow, Judge\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"SYKES"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"SCUDDER"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"ST EVE"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"SYKES\": \", Circuit\", \"SCUDDER\": \", Circuit\", \"ST EVE\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645957/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":8,"string":"8"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Randall Goulding v. Leslie Weiss\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-08-06\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\n\n\nNos. 18-1740 & 18-1791\nMICHAEL ALONSO, individually and derivatively on behalf of\nNUTMEG/MERCURY FUND, LLP (hereinafter within this caption\nMERCURY FUND, LLP), et al.,\n Plaintiffs-Appellants,\n and\n\nRANDALL S. GOULDING,\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\n\n v.\n\nLESLIE J. WEISS and BARNES & THORNBURG,\n Defendants-Appellees.\n ____________________\n\n Appeals from the United States District Court for the\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\n No. 1:12-cv-7373 — Joan Humphrey Lefkow, Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED APRIL 11, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 6, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before SYKES, SCUDDER, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.\n\f2 Nos. 18-1740 & 18-1791\n\n SCUDDER, Circuit Judge. This appeal centers on the perfor-\nmance of the court-appointed receiver of financial advisory\nfirm Nutmeg Group, LLC. The district court appointed the re-\nceiver after the Securities and Exchange Commission initiated\nan enforcement action against Nutmeg and its managing\nmember, Randall Goulding. Against the Commission’s alle-\ngations of ongoing fraud and misappropriation of client as-\nsets, the district court presiding over the SEC matter entered\na temporary restraining order prohibiting Goulding from op-\nerating Nutmeg and appointed a receiver to oversee all as-\npects of the firm’s business.\n This civil suit followed. Goulding and a group of limited\npartners in one or more of the Nutmeg funds alleged that the\nreceiver breached her fiduciary duties and, in doing so, re-\nduced the value of the funds’ assets. After dismissing certain\ncounts, the district court entered summary judgment in the\nreceiver’s favor on all remaining claims. Because we agree\nthat no reasonable jury could find that the receiver engaged\nin a willful, deliberate, or even grossly negligent breach of a\nfiduciary duty, we affirm.\n I\n A\n Nutmeg Group, LLC, formerly managed by Randall\nGoulding, served as an investment advisor and sole general\npartner of more than a dozen investment funds, which we\nwill refer to collectively as the Funds. Each of the constituent\nfunds is a limited partnership under Illinois or Minnesota\nlaw. With Goulding at the helm, Nutmeg executed transac-\ntions on behalf of the Funds and oversaw their investment\nstrategies. Goulding’s management of the Funds ended in\n\fNos. 18-1740 & 18-1791 3\n\n2009, when the SEC brought an enforcement action against\nhim, Nutmeg, and others in the Northern District of Illinois,\nalleging violations of the Investment Advisors Act of 1940.\nThe thrust of the Commission’s complaint was that Nutmeg\nmisappropriated client assets and failed to maintain proper\nrecords. See SEC v. Nutmeg Grp., LLC, No. 09 C 1775, 2011 WL\n5042094 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 19, 2011).\n The district court handling the SEC action found that the\nCommission made the showing necessary to warrant the is-\nsuance of a restraining order prohibiting Goulding from man-\naging the Funds. The court also granted the SEC’s unopposed\nmotion to appoint attorney Leslie Weiss as receiver for Nut-\nmeg. The appointment order granted Weiss the authority to\n“oversee all aspects of Nutmeg’s operations and business,”\nincluding “serving as general partner and investment advi-\nsor” to the Funds. It also provided that, as receiver, Weiss was\n“solely the agent of [the] [c]ourt,” and should continue Nut-\nmeg’s business “in such manner, to such extent, and for such\nduration as [she] may in the exercise of her business judgment\nand in good faith deem to be necessary or appropriate.” The\norder directed Weiss to file regular status reports with the dis-\ntrict court detailing her acts as receiver.\n The appointment order separately addressed Weiss’s lia-\nbility, broadly providing that Weiss and any professionals she\nretained would not be held liable to anyone “for their own\ngood faith compliance with any order, rule, law, judgment, or\ndecree.” The order added that neither Weiss nor any retained\npersonnel would be held liable “with respect to the perfor-\nmance of their duties and responsibilities as Receiver and Re-\ntained Personnel . . . except upon a finding by [the district]\n[c]ourt that they acted or failed to act as a result of\n\f4 Nos. 18-1740 & 18-1791\n\nmalfeasance, bad faith, gross negligence or in reckless disre-\ngard of their duties.”\n B\n Following her appointment, Weiss submitted the required\nstatus reports to the district court. In her first report, she\nbroadly shared the results of her initial due diligence. She in-\nformed the court of her review of the Funds’ assets, which in-\ncluded convertible notes (many of which were in default);\nlawsuits or judgments against borrowers who had defaulted\non their notes or refused to convert notes to stocks; and\n“shells” of failed borrower companies that Nutmeg or the\nFunds had recovered when the companies defaulted on their\ndebt. Weiss also reported on her efforts to assess the collecta-\nbility of any outstanding judgments, while also conveying her\nconcern that some of the notes’ issuers were not financially\nstable. In time Weiss submitted additional reports informing\nthe district court of particular developments and challenges\nshe was encountering as well as decisions she was making as\nreceiver.\n To further fulfill her duties, Weiss sought assistance from\ninvestment advisors and attorneys. For example, in addition\nto retaining Barnes & Thornburg, the law firm where she is a\npartner, Weiss hired McClendon, Morrison & Partners, LLC\nas an investment advisor. She also consulted with a collection\nfirm regarding the collectability of certain judgments against\nborrowers who had defaulted on their notes.\n Unsatisfied with Weiss’s performance as receiver, Gould-\ning and a group of limited partners from certain funds man-\naged by Nutmeg filed an individual and derivative action on\nbehalf of the Funds. The complaint named as defendants\n\fNos. 18-1740 & 18-1791 5\n\nWeiss, Barnes & Thornburg, Nutmeg, and the Funds, and al-\nleged state-law claims for breach of fiduciary duty and legal\nmalpractice. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that Weiss\nbreached her fiduciary duties as receiver, including under Il-\nlinois’s and Minnesota’s partnership statutes, by failing to\npursue certain opportunities to the detriment of one or more\nof the Funds and, separately, by not converting certain debt\nowed to Nutmeg or a particular fund into stock to be sold on\nthe open market. The plaintiffs also brought a federal claim\npursuant to the Investment Advisors Act of 1940 and SEC\nRule 206(4)-2.\n For their part, Weiss and Barnes & Thornburg filed a mo-\ntion to dismiss, which the district court granted in part. The\ncourt dismissed the plaintiffs’ federal securities law claim as\nwell as several other counts in an amended complaint, includ-\ning all claims against Nutmeg, all legal malpractice claims\nagainst Weiss and Barnes & Thornburg, and two breach of fi-\nduciary duty claims against Weiss. These dismissals are not at\nissue on appeal.\n Weiss and Barnes & Thornburg then successfully moved\nfor summary judgment on the remaining seventeen counts. In\na detailed and thorough opinion, the district court assessed\neach of the plaintiffs’ allegations, concluding that even when\nviewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, no reason-\nable jury could find that either Weiss or Barnes & Thornburg\nwillfully and deliberately violated any fiduciary duties. On\nappeal the plaintiffs challenge the district court’s ruling on se-\nlect claims advanced against Weiss.\n\f6 Nos. 18-1740 & 18-1791\n\n II\n A\n We begin with a brief word on our appellate jurisdiction.\nWe do so because the plaintiffs’ amended complaint named\nnot only Weiss and Barnes & Thornburg as defendants, but\nalso Nutmeg and the Funds. The district court’s final judg-\nment did not address the Funds, however.\n We nonetheless agree with the parties that the district\ncourt’s judgment constituted a final and appealable judgment\nunder 28 U.S.C. § 1291. First, although the amended com-\nplaint named 13 separate funds as defendants, the plaintiffs\ndid not assert any claims against these entities or seek any re-\nlief from them. More to it, the summary judgment order, by\nits terms, expressly resolved all claims in the district court. See\nBaltimore Orioles, Inc. v. Major League Baseball Players Ass'n, 805\nF.2d 663, 666 (7th Cir. 1986) (explaining that “a decision is fi-\nnal for the purpose of § 1291 if it ends the litigation on the\nmerits and leaves nothing for the district court to do but exe-\ncute the judgment”). In these circumstances, our appellate ju-\nrisdiction is secure.\n And this is so despite ongoing proceedings in the district\ncourt in the underlying SEC enforcement action. The docket\nshows that the parties consented to a bench trial before a mag-\nistrate judge in January 2018. They are awaiting a decision.\nWe have no reason to believe any outcome of the bench trial\nwill affect this appeal, however.\n\fNos. 18-1740 & 18-1791 7\n\n B\n We turn next to the standard of liability governing the\nplaintiffs’ state-law claims for breach of fiduciary duty. The\nplaintiffs assert that Minnesota and Illinois law apply because\neach of the funds is either a Minnesota or Illinois limited part-\nnership. With both states having adopted the Uniform Lim-\nited Partnership Act—and the plaintiffs not identifying any\nconflict in the states’ respective interpretations of the Act—\nour analysis proceeds by applying Illinois law. We would\nreach the same conclusions under Minnesota law.\n To recover for a breach of fiduciary duty, Illinois law re-\nquired the plaintiffs to establish the existence of a fiduciary\nduty, a breach of that duty, and damages proximately caused\nby the breach. See Gross v. Town of Cicero, Ill., 619 F.3d 697, 709\n(7th Cir. 2010). On this much the parties agree. From there,\nhowever, they dispute the substantive standard to which\nWeiss should be held when assessing whether she breached\nher fiduciary duties as receiver.\n The district court relied on our 1985 decision in In re Chi-\ncago Pacific Corp. and determined that, to hold a court-ap-\npointed receiver personally liable, the plaintiffs must show\nthat Weiss engaged in a “willful and deliberate” violation of\nher fiduciary duties. 773 F.2d 909, 915 (7th Cir. 1985) (citing\nMosser v. Darrow, 341 U.S. 267, 272 (1951) and Sherr v. Winkler,\n552 F.2d 1367, 1375 (10th Cir. 1977)). In this way, the district\ncourt effectively saw the Illinois state-law standard of liability\nas mirroring the federal willful and deliberate standard an-\nnounced by the Supreme Court in the bankruptcy context in\nMosser v. Darrow, see 341 U.S. at 272, which we, in turn, have\napplied in cases involving alleged breaches of duty by bank-\nruptcy trustees. See, e.g., Grochocinski v. Mayer Brown Rowe &\n\f8 Nos. 18-1740 & 18-1791\n\nMaw, LLP, 719 F.3d 785, 800 (7th Cir. 2013); In re Chicago Pac.\nCorp., 773 F.2d at 915.\n The plaintiffs contend that the federal benchmark sets the\nliability bar too high. By their measure, the lesser gross negli-\ngence standard that the Illinois legislature made applicable to\nthe acts of all general partners reflects the proper rule of deci-\nsion. See 805 ILCS 215/408(c); see also Minn. Stat.\n§ 321.0408(c). This is especially so, the plaintiffs urge, because\nthe district court order appointing Weiss as receiver expressly\nstated that she could be held liable upon a showing of gross\nnegligence.\n The plaintiffs have some, but not all, of the analysis right.\nThey are right, of course, that they brought claims under Illi-\nnois (and Minnesota) law. They are equally right, as a matter\nof subject matter jurisdiction, that the doctrine of ancillary ju-\nrisdiction permitted them to bring these claims against Weiss,\na federally-appointed receiver, in the same federal court pre-\nsiding over the SEC action, here, the Northern District of Illi-\nnois. See, e.g., Robinson v. Michigan Consolidated Gas Co. Inc.,\n918 F.2d 579, 586 (6th Cir. 1990) (quoting C. WRIGHT & A.\nMILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 2985 at 45) (“It\nis well settled that ‘actions against a receiver arising out of his\nconduct of the receivership business may be brought in the\nappointing court even though there may not be any inde-\npendent grounds for asserting federal jurisdiction.’”).\n This case presents a slight wrinkle. Ordinarily in the re-\nceivership context, the exercise of ancillary jurisdiction would\nentail the same district judge responsible for the SEC matter\n(here, Judge Coleman) also hearing any claims asserted\nagainst a court-appointed receiver. Here the record shows\nthat the plaintiffs sought permission to file claims against the\n\fNos. 18-1740 & 18-1791 9\n\nreceiver and her appointed counsel in the Northern District of\nIllinois and Judge Coleman appropriately authorized the re-\nquest. But a different judge, Judge Lefkow, ultimately han-\ndled the plaintiffs’ ancillary claims. We can view all of this as\nreasonably occurring as part of the Northern District’s case\nmanagement following the death of Judge Hibbler, the dis-\ntrict judge who had presided over the SEC enforcement action\nsince its inception. In these circumstances, we agree with the\nplaintiffs that the district court properly exercised ancillary\njurisdiction over the claims challenging Weiss’s performance\nas a court-appointed receiver. For her part, Weiss too agrees\nthat the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over the\nplaintiffs’ claims.\n Turning to the claims themselves, we agree with the plain-\ntiffs that state law, and not federal bankruptcy law or federal\ncommon law, supplies the controlling standard of fiduciary\ncare. See 28 U.S.C. § 959(b) (stating that a court-appointed re-\nceiver “shall manage and operate the property in his posses-\nsion as such trustee, receiver or manager according to the re-\nquirements of the valid laws of the State in which such prop-\nerty is situated, in the same manner that the owner or posses-\nsor thereof would be bound to do if in possession thereof”).\n Where we part ways with the plaintiffs is in their insist-\nence that Weiss had to abide by the ordinary gross negligence\nstandard that both governs general partners under Illinois\n(and Minnesota) law and appears in the receivership appoint-\nment order. Put another way, the plaintiffs see Weiss as a gen-\neral partner, albeit court-appointed, who should be held to\nthe run-of-the-mill general partner standard of liability under\nIllinois law. If only the analysis was so straightforward.\n\f10 Nos. 18-1740 & 18-1791\n\n As a threshold matter, it is far from clear that the district\ncourt, in appointing Weiss as receiver, made her the general\npartner of the Funds. The appointment order, to be sure, au-\nthorized Weiss to “oversee all aspects of Nutmeg’s operations,\nwhich include, but are not limited to, serving as general part-\nner and investment advisor” to the Funds. While this lan-\nguage makes plain that Weiss acquired the authority held in\nthe ordinary course by a fund’s general partner, this is not the\nsame as making Weiss a general partner for any and all pur-\nposes, including for personal liability for a breach of a fiduci-\nary duty such that ordinary state partnership statutes should\napply.\n This conclusion is underscored by the fact that the ap-\npointment of Weiss as receiver was far from an ordinary-\ncourse event—indeed, it came upon a finding by the district\ncourt that Nutmeg, as the sole general partner of the Funds,\nand Goulding, as Nutmeg’s managing partner, had engaged\nin substantial malfeasance. What is more, the order appoint-\ning Weiss did not put her only in the former shoes of Nutmeg\nand Goulding. To the contrary, Weiss was appointed not as a\nfiduciary of any particular fund but instead “solely [as] the\nagent of th[e] Court in acting as Receiver,” and charged with\nthe broad responsibility of “tak[ing] such action necessary\nand appropriate to prevent the dissipation or concealment of\nany funds or assets constituting Receivership Property and\notherwise preserve any such funds and assets.”\n To identify the proper rule or decision, we need to ask\nwhat standard of fiduciary care Illinois courts have adopted,\nnot for ordinary general partners, but in the context of a court-\nappointed receiver. If Illinois caselaw does not supply the an-\nswer, the question becomes what standard the Illinois\n\fNos. 18-1740 & 18-1791 11\n\nSupreme Court would adopt if presented with the issue. See\nIn re Zimmer, NextGen Knee Implant Products Liab. Litig., 884\nF.3d 746, 751 (7th Cir. 2018) (collecting authorities and ex-\nplaining that a federal court’s task in applying state law is to\ndetermine how the state’s highest court would rule and,\nwhere a state’s courts have yet to address the question, to ex-\namine the law in other jurisdictions to discern the probable\ndirection of the state law at issue).\n Our research has identified no Illinois case addressing the\nquestion. But that observation does not lead to a dead end. In\npredicting what standard of liability the Illinois Supreme\nCourt would adopt, we have every reason to believe the court\nwould see a court-appointed receiver as just that—as an indi-\nvidual serving not as an ordinary fiduciary or general partner,\nbut instead at a federal court’s direction to fulfill unique re-\nsponsibilities. Here that would mean treating Weiss as a re-\nceiver appointed to oversee and to protect the assets of at least\n13 limited partnerships in the wake of a federal district court\nfinding substantial misconduct by Nutmeg and its former\nmanaging partner.\n Informed by our decision in Chicago Pacific Corp., we be-\nlieve the Illinois Supreme Court would arrive at the willful\nand deliberate standard of personal liability for a court-ap-\npointed receiver. See 773 F.2d at 915. This heightened stand-\nard of liability roots itself in the Supreme Court’s 1951 deci-\nsion in Mosser and accounts for the context in which a receiver\nis operating. The standard recognizes that if a receiver is “bur-\ndened with having to defend against suits by litigants disap-\npointed by his actions on the court’s behalf, his work for the\ncourt will be impeded.” Matter of Linton, 136 F.3d 544, 545 (7th\nCir. 1998). So too does this standard reflect the reality that\n\f12 Nos. 18-1740 & 18-1791\n\nreceivers are often appointed to take charge of entities with\nwhich they have had no prior involvement: imposing per-\nsonal liability for mistakes in business judgment could dis-\ncourage competent individuals from acting as receivers.\nGiven the clarity and reasons supporting this standard in our\ncaselaw—developed, to be sure, in the analogous bankruptcy\ncontext—we conclude that the Illinois Supreme Court most\nlikely would chart the same course as a matter of Illinois law.\n The practical considerations warranting a heightened lia-\nbility standard are far from fiction here. Take, for example, the\nobservations the district court made in the underlying SEC\nmatter. Judge Hibbler went out of his way to warn that\n“Goulding’s obstinacy in the underlying litigation demon-\nstrates an animosity towards the Receiver and provides fur-\nther pause to be wary of any purported claim he might raise\nagainst the Receiver, particularly in the absence of even a scin-\ntilla of evidence that the Receiver acted in bad faith.” SEC v.\nNutmeg Grp., LLC, No. 09 C 1775, 2011 WL 5042092, at *4 (N.D.\nIll. Oct. 19, 2011). In much the same vein, Judge Hibbler ob-\nserved that “[t]o say that Goulding has been uncooperative\nwith the Receiver is to understate his recalcitrance.” Id.\n In the end, we believe the Illinois Supreme Court would\nrequire a showing that Weiss willfully and deliberately vio-\nlated her fiduciary duties before imposing judgment for per-\nsonal liability. Under this standard, the plaintiffs must show\nthat Weiss intentionally took actions she knew violated her fi-\nduciary duties. See, e.g., Petrovic v. Dep't of Employment Secu-\nrity, 2016 IL 118562, ¶ 30–31 (defining “deliberate and willful”\nin the context of the Illinois Unemployment Insurance Act as\n“conscious act[s] made in violation of company rules, when\nthe employee knows it is against the rules”); see also Levy v.\n\fNos. 18-1740 & 18-1791 13\n\nMarkal Sales Corp., 268 Ill. App. 3d 355, 380 (1st Dist. 1994)\n(finding a “willful breach of a fiduciary duty” based on evi-\ndence that corporate directors engaged in acts that were\n“lacking in good faith, underhanded, deceitful and sly”).\n Even if our prediction is mistaken, however, all agree that\nIllinois law, at the very least, would hold Weiss to a standard\nof gross negligence. See 805 ILCS 215/408(c). And the plain-\ntiffs are quick to remind that this same gross negligence\nstandard appears in the district court’s order appointing\nWeiss as receiver in the first instance. Fair enough. It is cer-\ntainly possible, especially as a matter of comity, that the Illi-\nnois Supreme Court would inform its identification and defi-\nnition of the controlling liability standard by the standard ap-\npearing in the order appointing Weiss as receiver.\n Under a gross negligence standard, the plaintiffs could not\nrecover absent a showing that Weiss acted in her capacity as\nreceiver with “reckless indifference to or deliberate disregard\nof” her duties or that her actions were “without the bounds of\nreason.” Sherman v. Ryan, 392 Ill. App. 3d 712, 732 (1st Dist.\n2009) (quoting Benihana of Tokyo, Inc. v. Benihana, Inc., 891 A.2d\n150, 192 (Del. Ch. 2005)).\n We can stop short of staking out a more definitive position\non the substantive liability standard, however. As our ensuing\nanalysis shows, the district court properly determined that\nthe record evidence required entry of summary judgment for\nWeiss. This is so, we conclude, whether we apply the height-\nened willful and deliberate standard or the lesser gross negli-\ngence standard.\n\f14 Nos. 18-1740 & 18-1791\n\n III\n The plaintiffs challenge the entry of summary judgment\non sixteen distinct claims alleging that Weiss breached her fi-\nduciary duties by failing to take certain actions like bringing\nlawsuits, enforcing notes, converting debt owed to Nutmeg or\none or another of its funds into stock, or entering into certain\ntransactions.\n We pause to highlight that, based on our review of the\nbriefs, the plaintiffs do not challenge any aspect of the district\ncourt’s rulings on the claims asserted against Barnes & Thorn-\nburg. Accordingly, this appeal proceeds only as to the plain-\ntiffs’ challenge to the district court’s resolution of claims\nagainst Weiss as receiver. See Mahaffey v. Ramos, 588 F.3d 1142,\n1146 (7th Cir. 2009) (declining to consider claims not ade-\nquately briefed).\n As to those claims, we review the district court’s grant of\nsummary judgment de novo, construing all facts and drawing\nall reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs’ favor as the non-\nmoving party. See Van den Bosch v. Raemisch, 658 F.3d 778, 785\n(7th Cir. 2011).\n A\n We begin with the plaintiffs’ claims challenging Weiss’s\ndecisions to pursue or decline certain opportunities on behalf\nof Nutmeg. As the plaintiffs see it, Weiss breached her fiduci-\nary duties by failing to pursue certain litigation and by failing\nto enforce certain judgments and promissory notes. The dis-\ntrict court carefully considered and rejected this category of\nclaims, and we see no error in its analysis. A few examples\nsuffice to explain why.\n\fNos. 18-1740 & 18-1791 15\n\n Consider Count V. The plaintiffs alleged that Weiss\nbreached her duties by failing to enforce a $2.7 million judg-\nment held by a particular Nutmeg fund against an entity\ncalled RMD Entertainment Group. While the plaintiffs assert\nthat Weiss made no effort to settle or collect the judgment, the\ndistrict court saw the facts otherwise. Instead, the court ex-\nplained, the evidence demonstrates that Weiss investigated\nthe collectability of the judgment by contacting RMD and\nlearning not only that Nutmeg’s judgment may be defective,\nbut also that RMD had no assets in the United States. But\nWeiss did not stop at RMD’s word. She went further by con-\nsulting a collection agency, which confirmed that RMD was\njudgment proof. She then conveyed this information to the\ndistrict court handling the SEC matter, explaining that she\nhad contacted third parties to inquire about their interest in\npurchasing the judgment but was unable to find a buyer. The\nplaintiffs, although plainly disagreeing with Weiss’s business\njudgment, did not show that this diligence never occurred. So,\neven when viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs,\nthe record shows that Weiss took steps to collect on this judg-\nment and ultimately decided it was not worth pursuing. The\ndistrict court was on sound footing concluding that no rea-\nsonable jury could find that Weiss willfully or even recklessly\nbreached her fiduciary duties.\n Similarly, in Count XI, the plaintiffs alleged that Weiss\nbreached her fiduciary duties by failing to follow Goulding’s\nadvice and “d[oing] nothing” to monetize a defaulted con-\nvertible note issued by North Bay Resources. But here, too, we\nsee the evidence much the same way as the district court. The\nrecord shows that Weiss contacted North Bay and explained\nthat, based on Nutmeg’s records, she believed the firm still\nowed on the note. North Bay disagreed, taking the position\n\f16 Nos. 18-1740 & 18-1791\n\nthat the note had been satisfied with shares issued to Nutmeg.\nIn a sworn declaration, Weiss explained that, based on her\ndue diligence, she made the decision not to expend further\nresources to pursue a claim against North Bay. An informed\ndecision not to move forward with a particular course of ac-\ntion falls short of demonstrating a willful and deliberate (or,\nfor that matter, a grossly negligent) violation of her duties.\n We likewise agree with the district court that Count VII\n(the plaintiffs’ third failure to enforce claim) and Counts X,\nXIV, and XVI (relating to lawsuits on behalf of the Funds) fail\nfor the same reasons. In each instance, the evidence shows\nthat Weiss investigated the potential claims or litigation op-\nportunities, considered the strengths and weaknesses of avail-\nable options, and weighed the costs of pursuing certain op-\nportunities before exercising her business judgment. The\nplaintiffs, while vigorously disagreeing with Weiss’s deci-\nsions, did not bring forth evidence to show that a jury could\nfind that those decisions reflected a willful, deliberate, or\ngrossly negligent breach of her fiduciary duties.\n B\n The plaintiffs also brought a series of claims (in Counts VI,\nVIII, and XVII) alleging that Weiss breached her duties by fail-\ning to convert debt owed to Nutmeg or to certain funds into\nstock to be sold on the open market. Here again, though, the\ndistrict court got it right in concluding that the record evi-\ndence requires a contrary conclusion.\n The plaintiffs allege three instances where, as they would\nhave it, Weiss should have converted certain debt to stock and\nthen liquidated the equity at a profit. For example, the plain-\ntiffs contend that Weiss breached her duties by settling a\n\fNos. 18-1740 & 18-1791 17\n\n$50,000 note owed by an entity named GoIP Global, rather\nthan exercising a right to convert the note to stock. Yet even if\nwe credit the plaintiffs’ view that it was both feasible and ad-\nvantageous for Weiss to convert the GoIP debt and sell the\nstock, we agree with the district court that the plaintiffs’ alle-\ngations, at most, support an inference that Weiss exercised\npoor judgment. But a poor business decision falls well short\nof demonstrating either a willful and deliberate or even a\ngrossly negligent breach of her duties.\n At a more specific level, the record shows that Weiss did\nconvert some of the GoIP debt and tried to convert the re-\nmainder, only to find GoIP non-responsive. She then sought,\nreceived, and followed professional investment advice about\nwhat to do with the remaining debt. Even viewing the facts in\nthe plaintiffs’ strongest favor, we cannot conclude that Weiss\ncame anywhere close to willfully, deliberately, or even negli-\ngently offending her fiduciary obligations: she retained—and\nsought guidance from—an investment advisory firm, and\nwhen faced with two choices, she chose the option advised by\nthe firm. Absent from the record are facts showing that Weiss\nintended to harm the Funds by settling the GoIP debt rather\nthan undertaking conversion and liquidation transactions.\nAnd the record shows the same level of diligence as to the\nfacts underlying the allegations in Counts VIII and XVII.\n C\n The plaintiffs also devote substantial attention to three\nspecific claims against the receiver. Once again, though, the\ndistrict court properly saw no genuine issue of material fact\npertinent to these claims.\n\f18 Nos. 18-1740 & 18-1791\n\n First, in Count IV, the plaintiffs allege that Weiss breached\nher fiduciary duties by failing to receive court approval to pay\nany fees exceeding a $150,000 cap imposed by the district\ncourt to Crowe Horwath, the accounting firm that advised her\nin the execution of her receivership responsibilities. While it\nis undisputed that Weiss incurred $168,000 in advisory fees\nbeyond the cap, we agree with the district court that no rea-\nsonable jury could find that her doing so reflected an inten-\ntional breach of her fiduciary duties. The court handling the\nSEC matter appointed Crowe Horwath before Weiss became\nreceiver and explicitly authorized her to continue using the\nfirm. The record also shows that Crowe Horwath estimated\nits fees at $168,000 to complete its outstanding work. Weiss\nshared this information with the district court and kept the\ncourt informed of what Crowe Horwath was doing, why the\nwork was needed, and how much it would cost. She also\nheeded the court’s instruction to take a “conservative ap-\nproach” by submitting payment requests in installments as\nCrowe performed its work. While it is clear that the plaintiffs\nbelieve Crowe Horwath’s work was unnecessary, what is\nmissing is evidence showing that Weiss’s continued use of\nCrowe’s services reflected a willful, deliberate, or grossly neg-\nligent flouting of the district court’s directions or her fiduciary\nduties. Indeed, neither the district court overseeing the SEC\nmatter nor the Commission itself took issue with Weiss’s han-\ndling of the additional payments for Crowe Horwath’s ser-\nvices.\n Second, in Count IX, the plaintiffs allege that Weiss\nbreached her fiduciary duties by terminating a transaction\nthat would have enabled Inverso Corp., a corporate shell\nowned by several Nutmeg funds, to be used as a vehicle for\nan initial public offering. Notably, however, in the SEC’s\n\fNos. 18-1740 & 18-1791 19\n\nmotion to appoint Weiss as receiver, the Commission flagged\nthe Inverso deal and directed Weiss to review it. Upon doing\nso Weiss chose to halt the transaction because it “reeked of a\nscam.” In her sworn declarations, Weiss provided a detailed\nexplanation of why she did not approve the transaction: she\nquestioned its legitimacy and determined the business plan\nwas implausible because, among other things, it projected In-\nverso would gain 5% of the global market share for multiple\nsclerosis treatment in just two years and 5% of global cancer\ntreatment revenues in just four years with a budget of only a\nfew million dollars. No evidence suggests Weiss formed these\nviews on a whim or held them in willful or deliberate (or\ngrossly negligent) disregard of her duties as receiver.\n Third, Count XIX alleged that Weiss breached her fiduciary\nduties by expending attorneys’ fees on a frivolous motion to\nshow cause. In April 2010, in the SEC matter, Weiss filed a mo-\ntion for an order to show cause against Goulding for his fail-\nure to cooperate with her. She pointed to 11 different in-\nstances of his noncooperation, one of which involved locating\nevidence of investor approval to modify the operating agree-\nment for the Nutmeg/Mercury LLP Fund. As it turned out,\nhowever, Weiss already had the relevant documents in the\nfiles seized from Nutmeg. Goulding reacted to learning of this\nmistake by urging the district court in the SEC case to sanction\nWeiss. The district court denied the motion, explaining that\nthere was “no evidence of an intentional fraud, concealment\nor conspiracy” on Weiss’s part and because “there [was] no\nsuggestion that all of the other issues raised in the [r]eceiver’s\nmotion also were without merit.” We see no error with this\nconclusion.\n\f20 Nos. 18-1740 & 18-1791\n\n IV\n The plaintiffs’ amended complaints and arguments on ap-\npeal are expansive. Based upon our review of the record and\nthe parties’ briefs, we have focused only on those claims that\nwe believe warrant discussion. But our ultimate conclusion—\nthat no reasonable jury could find that Weiss engaged in a\nwillful, deliberate, or even grossly negligent breach of a fidu-\nciary duty—applies with equal force to the totality of the\nplaintiffs’ claims on appeal. For these reasons, we AFFIRM.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Randall Goulding v. Leslie Weiss\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-08-06\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\n\\n\\nNos. 18-1740 & 18-1791\\nMICHAEL ALONSO, individually and derivatively on behalf of\\nNUTMEG/MERCURY FUND, LLP (hereinafter within this caption\\nMERCURY FUND, LLP), et al.,\\n Plaintiffs-Appellants,\\n and\\n\\nRANDALL S. GOULDING,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n\\n v.\\n\\nLESLIE J. WEISS and BARNES & THORNBURG,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeals from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 1:12-cv-7373 — Joan Humphrey Lefkow, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED APRIL 11, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 6, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before SYKES, SCUDDER, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.\\n\\f2 Nos. 18-1740 & 18-1791\\n\\n SCUDDER, Circuit Judge. This appeal centers on the perfor-\\nmance of the court-appointed receiver of financial advisory\\nfirm Nutmeg Group, LLC. The district court appointed the re-\\nceiver after the Securities and Exchange Commission initiated\\nan enforcement action against Nutmeg and its managing\\nmember, Randall Goulding. Against the Commission’s alle-\\ngations of ongoing fraud and misappropriation of client as-\\nsets, the district court presiding over the SEC matter entered\\na temporary restraining order prohibiting Goulding from op-\\nerating Nutmeg and appointed a receiver to oversee all as-\\npects of the firm’s business.\\n This civil suit followed. Goulding and a group of limited\\npartners in one or more of the Nutmeg funds alleged that the\\nreceiver breached her fiduciary duties and, in doing so, re-\\nduced the value of the funds’ assets. After dismissing certain\\ncounts, the district court entered summary judgment in the\\nreceiver’s favor on all remaining claims. Because we agree\\nthat no reasonable jury could find that the receiver engaged\\nin a willful, deliberate, or even grossly negligent breach of a\\nfiduciary duty, we affirm.\\n I\\n A\\n Nutmeg Group, LLC, formerly managed by Randall\\nGoulding, served as an investment advisor and sole general\\npartner of more than a dozen investment funds, which we\\nwill refer to collectively as the Funds. Each of the constituent\\nfunds is a limited partnership under Illinois or Minnesota\\nlaw. With Goulding at the helm, Nutmeg executed transac-\\ntions on behalf of the Funds and oversaw their investment\\nstrategies. Goulding’s management of the Funds ended in\\n\\fNos. 18-1740 & 18-1791 3\\n\\n2009, when the SEC brought an enforcement action against\\nhim, Nutmeg, and others in the Northern District of Illinois,\\nalleging violations of the Investment Advisors Act of 1940.\\nThe thrust of the Commission’s complaint was that Nutmeg\\nmisappropriated client assets and failed to maintain proper\\nrecords. See SEC v. Nutmeg Grp., LLC, No. 09 C 1775, 2011 WL\\n5042094 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 19, 2011).\\n The district court handling the SEC action found that the\\nCommission made the showing necessary to warrant the is-\\nsuance of a restraining order prohibiting Goulding from man-\\naging the Funds. The court also granted the SEC’s unopposed\\nmotion to appoint attorney Leslie Weiss as receiver for Nut-\\nmeg. The appointment order granted Weiss the authority to\\n“oversee all aspects of Nutmeg’s operations and business,”\\nincluding “serving as general partner and investment advi-\\nsor” to the Funds. It also provided that, as receiver, Weiss was\\n“solely the agent of [the] [c]ourt,” and should continue Nut-\\nmeg’s business “in such manner, to such extent, and for such\\nduration as [she] may in the exercise of her business judgment\\nand in good faith deem to be necessary or appropriate.” The\\norder directed Weiss to file regular status reports with the dis-\\ntrict court detailing her acts as receiver.\\n The appointment order separately addressed Weiss’s lia-\\nbility, broadly providing that Weiss and any professionals she\\nretained would not be held liable to anyone “for their own\\ngood faith compliance with any order, rule, law, judgment, or\\ndecree.” The order added that neither Weiss nor any retained\\npersonnel would be held liable “with respect to the perfor-\\nmance of their duties and responsibilities as Receiver and Re-\\ntained Personnel . . . except upon a finding by [the district]\\n[c]ourt that they acted or failed to act as a result of\\n\\f4 Nos. 18-1740 & 18-1791\\n\\nmalfeasance, bad faith, gross negligence or in reckless disre-\\ngard of their duties.”\\n B\\n Following her appointment, Weiss submitted the required\\nstatus reports to the district court. In her first report, she\\nbroadly shared the results of her initial due diligence. She in-\\nformed the court of her review of the Funds’ assets, which in-\\ncluded convertible notes (many of which were in default);\\nlawsuits or judgments against borrowers who had defaulted\\non their notes or refused to convert notes to stocks; and\\n“shells” of failed borrower companies that Nutmeg or the\\nFunds had recovered when the companies defaulted on their\\ndebt. Weiss also reported on her efforts to assess the collecta-\\nbility of any outstanding judgments, while also conveying her\\nconcern that some of the notes’ issuers were not financially\\nstable. In time Weiss submitted additional reports informing\\nthe district court of particular developments and challenges\\nshe was encountering as well as decisions she was making as\\nreceiver.\\n To further fulfill her duties, Weiss sought assistance from\\ninvestment advisors and attorneys. For example, in addition\\nto retaining Barnes & Thornburg, the law firm where she is a\\npartner, Weiss hired McClendon, Morrison & Partners, LLC\\nas an investment advisor. She also consulted with a collection\\nfirm regarding the collectability of certain judgments against\\nborrowers who had defaulted on their notes.\\n Unsatisfied with Weiss’s performance as receiver, Gould-\\ning and a group of limited partners from certain funds man-\\naged by Nutmeg filed an individual and derivative action on\\nbehalf of the Funds. The complaint named as defendants\\n\\fNos. 18-1740 & 18-1791 5\\n\\nWeiss, Barnes & Thornburg, Nutmeg, and the Funds, and al-\\nleged state-law claims for breach of fiduciary duty and legal\\nmalpractice. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that Weiss\\nbreached her fiduciary duties as receiver, including under Il-\\nlinois’s and Minnesota’s partnership statutes, by failing to\\npursue certain opportunities to the detriment of one or more\\nof the Funds and, separately, by not converting certain debt\\nowed to Nutmeg or a particular fund into stock to be sold on\\nthe open market. The plaintiffs also brought a federal claim\\npursuant to the Investment Advisors Act of 1940 and SEC\\nRule 206(4)-2.\\n For their part, Weiss and Barnes & Thornburg filed a mo-\\ntion to dismiss, which the district court granted in part. The\\ncourt dismissed the plaintiffs’ federal securities law claim as\\nwell as several other counts in an amended complaint, includ-\\ning all claims against Nutmeg, all legal malpractice claims\\nagainst Weiss and Barnes & Thornburg, and two breach of fi-\\nduciary duty claims against Weiss. These dismissals are not at\\nissue on appeal.\\n Weiss and Barnes & Thornburg then successfully moved\\nfor summary judgment on the remaining seventeen counts. In\\na detailed and thorough opinion, the district court assessed\\neach of the plaintiffs’ allegations, concluding that even when\\nviewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, no reason-\\nable jury could find that either Weiss or Barnes & Thornburg\\nwillfully and deliberately violated any fiduciary duties. On\\nappeal the plaintiffs challenge the district court’s ruling on se-\\nlect claims advanced against Weiss.\\n\\f6 Nos. 18-1740 & 18-1791\\n\\n II\\n A\\n We begin with a brief word on our appellate jurisdiction.\\nWe do so because the plaintiffs’ amended complaint named\\nnot only Weiss and Barnes & Thornburg as defendants, but\\nalso Nutmeg and the Funds. The district court’s final judg-\\nment did not address the Funds, however.\\n We nonetheless agree with the parties that the district\\ncourt’s judgment constituted a final and appealable judgment\\nunder 28 U.S.C. § 1291. First, although the amended com-\\nplaint named 13 separate funds as defendants, the plaintiffs\\ndid not assert any claims against these entities or seek any re-\\nlief from them. More to it, the summary judgment order, by\\nits terms, expressly resolved all claims in the district court. See\\nBaltimore Orioles, Inc. v. Major League Baseball Players Ass'n, 805\\nF.2d 663, 666 (7th Cir. 1986) (explaining that “a decision is fi-\\nnal for the purpose of § 1291 if it ends the litigation on the\\nmerits and leaves nothing for the district court to do but exe-\\ncute the judgment”). In these circumstances, our appellate ju-\\nrisdiction is secure.\\n And this is so despite ongoing proceedings in the district\\ncourt in the underlying SEC enforcement action. The docket\\nshows that the parties consented to a bench trial before a mag-\\nistrate judge in January 2018. They are awaiting a decision.\\nWe have no reason to believe any outcome of the bench trial\\nwill affect this appeal, however.\\n\\fNos. 18-1740 & 18-1791 7\\n\\n B\\n We turn next to the standard of liability governing the\\nplaintiffs’ state-law claims for breach of fiduciary duty. The\\nplaintiffs assert that Minnesota and Illinois law apply because\\neach of the funds is either a Minnesota or Illinois limited part-\\nnership. With both states having adopted the Uniform Lim-\\nited Partnership Act—and the plaintiffs not identifying any\\nconflict in the states’ respective interpretations of the Act—\\nour analysis proceeds by applying Illinois law. We would\\nreach the same conclusions under Minnesota law.\\n To recover for a breach of fiduciary duty, Illinois law re-\\nquired the plaintiffs to establish the existence of a fiduciary\\nduty, a breach of that duty, and damages proximately caused\\nby the breach. See Gross v. Town of Cicero, Ill., 619 F.3d 697, 709\\n(7th Cir. 2010). On this much the parties agree. From there,\\nhowever, they dispute the substantive standard to which\\nWeiss should be held when assessing whether she breached\\nher fiduciary duties as receiver.\\n The district court relied on our 1985 decision in In re Chi-\\ncago Pacific Corp. and determined that, to hold a court-ap-\\npointed receiver personally liable, the plaintiffs must show\\nthat Weiss engaged in a “willful and deliberate” violation of\\nher fiduciary duties. 773 F.2d 909, 915 (7th Cir. 1985) (citing\\nMosser v. Darrow, 341 U.S. 267, 272 (1951) and Sherr v. Winkler,\\n552 F.2d 1367, 1375 (10th Cir. 1977)). In this way, the district\\ncourt effectively saw the Illinois state-law standard of liability\\nas mirroring the federal willful and deliberate standard an-\\nnounced by the Supreme Court in the bankruptcy context in\\nMosser v. Darrow, see 341 U.S. at 272, which we, in turn, have\\napplied in cases involving alleged breaches of duty by bank-\\nruptcy trustees. See, e.g., Grochocinski v. Mayer Brown Rowe &\\n\\f8 Nos. 18-1740 & 18-1791\\n\\nMaw, LLP, 719 F.3d 785, 800 (7th Cir. 2013); In re Chicago Pac.\\nCorp., 773 F.2d at 915.\\n The plaintiffs contend that the federal benchmark sets the\\nliability bar too high. By their measure, the lesser gross negli-\\ngence standard that the Illinois legislature made applicable to\\nthe acts of all general partners reflects the proper rule of deci-\\nsion. See 805 ILCS 215/408(c); see also Minn. Stat.\\n§ 321.0408(c). This is especially so, the plaintiffs urge, because\\nthe district court order appointing Weiss as receiver expressly\\nstated that she could be held liable upon a showing of gross\\nnegligence.\\n The plaintiffs have some, but not all, of the analysis right.\\nThey are right, of course, that they brought claims under Illi-\\nnois (and Minnesota) law. They are equally right, as a matter\\nof subject matter jurisdiction, that the doctrine of ancillary ju-\\nrisdiction permitted them to bring these claims against Weiss,\\na federally-appointed receiver, in the same federal court pre-\\nsiding over the SEC action, here, the Northern District of Illi-\\nnois. See, e.g., Robinson v. Michigan Consolidated Gas Co. Inc.,\\n918 F.2d 579, 586 (6th Cir. 1990) (quoting C. WRIGHT & A.\\nMILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 2985 at 45) (“It\\nis well settled that ‘actions against a receiver arising out of his\\nconduct of the receivership business may be brought in the\\nappointing court even though there may not be any inde-\\npendent grounds for asserting federal jurisdiction.’”).\\n This case presents a slight wrinkle. Ordinarily in the re-\\nceivership context, the exercise of ancillary jurisdiction would\\nentail the same district judge responsible for the SEC matter\\n(here, Judge Coleman) also hearing any claims asserted\\nagainst a court-appointed receiver. Here the record shows\\nthat the plaintiffs sought permission to file claims against the\\n\\fNos. 18-1740 & 18-1791 9\\n\\nreceiver and her appointed counsel in the Northern District of\\nIllinois and Judge Coleman appropriately authorized the re-\\nquest. But a different judge, Judge Lefkow, ultimately han-\\ndled the plaintiffs’ ancillary claims. We can view all of this as\\nreasonably occurring as part of the Northern District’s case\\nmanagement following the death of Judge Hibbler, the dis-\\ntrict judge who had presided over the SEC enforcement action\\nsince its inception. In these circumstances, we agree with the\\nplaintiffs that the district court properly exercised ancillary\\njurisdiction over the claims challenging Weiss’s performance\\nas a court-appointed receiver. For her part, Weiss too agrees\\nthat the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over the\\nplaintiffs’ claims.\\n Turning to the claims themselves, we agree with the plain-\\ntiffs that state law, and not federal bankruptcy law or federal\\ncommon law, supplies the controlling standard of fiduciary\\ncare. See 28 U.S.C. § 959(b) (stating that a court-appointed re-\\nceiver “shall manage and operate the property in his posses-\\nsion as such trustee, receiver or manager according to the re-\\nquirements of the valid laws of the State in which such prop-\\nerty is situated, in the same manner that the owner or posses-\\nsor thereof would be bound to do if in possession thereof”).\\n Where we part ways with the plaintiffs is in their insist-\\nence that Weiss had to abide by the ordinary gross negligence\\nstandard that both governs general partners under Illinois\\n(and Minnesota) law and appears in the receivership appoint-\\nment order. Put another way, the plaintiffs see Weiss as a gen-\\neral partner, albeit court-appointed, who should be held to\\nthe run-of-the-mill general partner standard of liability under\\nIllinois law. If only the analysis was so straightforward.\\n\\f10 Nos. 18-1740 & 18-1791\\n\\n As a threshold matter, it is far from clear that the district\\ncourt, in appointing Weiss as receiver, made her the general\\npartner of the Funds. The appointment order, to be sure, au-\\nthorized Weiss to “oversee all aspects of Nutmeg’s operations,\\nwhich include, but are not limited to, serving as general part-\\nner and investment advisor” to the Funds. While this lan-\\nguage makes plain that Weiss acquired the authority held in\\nthe ordinary course by a fund’s general partner, this is not the\\nsame as making Weiss a general partner for any and all pur-\\nposes, including for personal liability for a breach of a fiduci-\\nary duty such that ordinary state partnership statutes should\\napply.\\n This conclusion is underscored by the fact that the ap-\\npointment of Weiss as receiver was far from an ordinary-\\ncourse event—indeed, it came upon a finding by the district\\ncourt that Nutmeg, as the sole general partner of the Funds,\\nand Goulding, as Nutmeg’s managing partner, had engaged\\nin substantial malfeasance. What is more, the order appoint-\\ning Weiss did not put her only in the former shoes of Nutmeg\\nand Goulding. To the contrary, Weiss was appointed not as a\\nfiduciary of any particular fund but instead “solely [as] the\\nagent of th[e] Court in acting as Receiver,” and charged with\\nthe broad responsibility of “tak[ing] such action necessary\\nand appropriate to prevent the dissipation or concealment of\\nany funds or assets constituting Receivership Property and\\notherwise preserve any such funds and assets.”\\n To identify the proper rule or decision, we need to ask\\nwhat standard of fiduciary care Illinois courts have adopted,\\nnot for ordinary general partners, but in the context of a court-\\nappointed receiver. If Illinois caselaw does not supply the an-\\nswer, the question becomes what standard the Illinois\\n\\fNos. 18-1740 & 18-1791 11\\n\\nSupreme Court would adopt if presented with the issue. See\\nIn re Zimmer, NextGen Knee Implant Products Liab. Litig., 884\\nF.3d 746, 751 (7th Cir. 2018) (collecting authorities and ex-\\nplaining that a federal court’s task in applying state law is to\\ndetermine how the state’s highest court would rule and,\\nwhere a state’s courts have yet to address the question, to ex-\\namine the law in other jurisdictions to discern the probable\\ndirection of the state law at issue).\\n Our research has identified no Illinois case addressing the\\nquestion. But that observation does not lead to a dead end. In\\npredicting what standard of liability the Illinois Supreme\\nCourt would adopt, we have every reason to believe the court\\nwould see a court-appointed receiver as just that—as an indi-\\nvidual serving not as an ordinary fiduciary or general partner,\\nbut instead at a federal court’s direction to fulfill unique re-\\nsponsibilities. Here that would mean treating Weiss as a re-\\nceiver appointed to oversee and to protect the assets of at least\\n13 limited partnerships in the wake of a federal district court\\nfinding substantial misconduct by Nutmeg and its former\\nmanaging partner.\\n Informed by our decision in Chicago Pacific Corp., we be-\\nlieve the Illinois Supreme Court would arrive at the willful\\nand deliberate standard of personal liability for a court-ap-\\npointed receiver. See 773 F.2d at 915. This heightened stand-\\nard of liability roots itself in the Supreme Court’s 1951 deci-\\nsion in Mosser and accounts for the context in which a receiver\\nis operating. The standard recognizes that if a receiver is “bur-\\ndened with having to defend against suits by litigants disap-\\npointed by his actions on the court’s behalf, his work for the\\ncourt will be impeded.” Matter of Linton, 136 F.3d 544, 545 (7th\\nCir. 1998). So too does this standard reflect the reality that\\n\\f12 Nos. 18-1740 & 18-1791\\n\\nreceivers are often appointed to take charge of entities with\\nwhich they have had no prior involvement: imposing per-\\nsonal liability for mistakes in business judgment could dis-\\ncourage competent individuals from acting as receivers.\\nGiven the clarity and reasons supporting this standard in our\\ncaselaw—developed, to be sure, in the analogous bankruptcy\\ncontext—we conclude that the Illinois Supreme Court most\\nlikely would chart the same course as a matter of Illinois law.\\n The practical considerations warranting a heightened lia-\\nbility standard are far from fiction here. Take, for example, the\\nobservations the district court made in the underlying SEC\\nmatter. Judge Hibbler went out of his way to warn that\\n“Goulding’s obstinacy in the underlying litigation demon-\\nstrates an animosity towards the Receiver and provides fur-\\nther pause to be wary of any purported claim he might raise\\nagainst the Receiver, particularly in the absence of even a scin-\\ntilla of evidence that the Receiver acted in bad faith.” SEC v.\\nNutmeg Grp., LLC, No. 09 C 1775, 2011 WL 5042092, at *4 (N.D.\\nIll. Oct. 19, 2011). In much the same vein, Judge Hibbler ob-\\nserved that “[t]o say that Goulding has been uncooperative\\nwith the Receiver is to understate his recalcitrance.” Id.\\n In the end, we believe the Illinois Supreme Court would\\nrequire a showing that Weiss willfully and deliberately vio-\\nlated her fiduciary duties before imposing judgment for per-\\nsonal liability. Under this standard, the plaintiffs must show\\nthat Weiss intentionally took actions she knew violated her fi-\\nduciary duties. See, e.g., Petrovic v. Dep't of Employment Secu-\\nrity, 2016 IL 118562, ¶ 30–31 (defining “deliberate and willful”\\nin the context of the Illinois Unemployment Insurance Act as\\n“conscious act[s] made in violation of company rules, when\\nthe employee knows it is against the rules”); see also Levy v.\\n\\fNos. 18-1740 & 18-1791 13\\n\\nMarkal Sales Corp., 268 Ill. App. 3d 355, 380 (1st Dist. 1994)\\n(finding a “willful breach of a fiduciary duty” based on evi-\\ndence that corporate directors engaged in acts that were\\n“lacking in good faith, underhanded, deceitful and sly”).\\n Even if our prediction is mistaken, however, all agree that\\nIllinois law, at the very least, would hold Weiss to a standard\\nof gross negligence. See 805 ILCS 215/408(c). And the plain-\\ntiffs are quick to remind that this same gross negligence\\nstandard appears in the district court’s order appointing\\nWeiss as receiver in the first instance. Fair enough. It is cer-\\ntainly possible, especially as a matter of comity, that the Illi-\\nnois Supreme Court would inform its identification and defi-\\nnition of the controlling liability standard by the standard ap-\\npearing in the order appointing Weiss as receiver.\\n Under a gross negligence standard, the plaintiffs could not\\nrecover absent a showing that Weiss acted in her capacity as\\nreceiver with “reckless indifference to or deliberate disregard\\nof” her duties or that her actions were “without the bounds of\\nreason.” Sherman v. Ryan, 392 Ill. App. 3d 712, 732 (1st Dist.\\n2009) (quoting Benihana of Tokyo, Inc. v. Benihana, Inc., 891 A.2d\\n150, 192 (Del. Ch. 2005)).\\n We can stop short of staking out a more definitive position\\non the substantive liability standard, however. As our ensuing\\nanalysis shows, the district court properly determined that\\nthe record evidence required entry of summary judgment for\\nWeiss. This is so, we conclude, whether we apply the height-\\nened willful and deliberate standard or the lesser gross negli-\\ngence standard.\\n\\f14 Nos. 18-1740 & 18-1791\\n\\n III\\n The plaintiffs challenge the entry of summary judgment\\non sixteen distinct claims alleging that Weiss breached her fi-\\nduciary duties by failing to take certain actions like bringing\\nlawsuits, enforcing notes, converting debt owed to Nutmeg or\\none or another of its funds into stock, or entering into certain\\ntransactions.\\n We pause to highlight that, based on our review of the\\nbriefs, the plaintiffs do not challenge any aspect of the district\\ncourt’s rulings on the claims asserted against Barnes & Thorn-\\nburg. Accordingly, this appeal proceeds only as to the plain-\\ntiffs’ challenge to the district court’s resolution of claims\\nagainst Weiss as receiver. See Mahaffey v. Ramos, 588 F.3d 1142,\\n1146 (7th Cir. 2009) (declining to consider claims not ade-\\nquately briefed).\\n As to those claims, we review the district court’s grant of\\nsummary judgment de novo, construing all facts and drawing\\nall reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs’ favor as the non-\\nmoving party. See Van den Bosch v. Raemisch, 658 F.3d 778, 785\\n(7th Cir. 2011).\\n A\\n We begin with the plaintiffs’ claims challenging Weiss’s\\ndecisions to pursue or decline certain opportunities on behalf\\nof Nutmeg. As the plaintiffs see it, Weiss breached her fiduci-\\nary duties by failing to pursue certain litigation and by failing\\nto enforce certain judgments and promissory notes. The dis-\\ntrict court carefully considered and rejected this category of\\nclaims, and we see no error in its analysis. A few examples\\nsuffice to explain why.\\n\\fNos. 18-1740 & 18-1791 15\\n\\n Consider Count V. The plaintiffs alleged that Weiss\\nbreached her duties by failing to enforce a $2.7 million judg-\\nment held by a particular Nutmeg fund against an entity\\ncalled RMD Entertainment Group. While the plaintiffs assert\\nthat Weiss made no effort to settle or collect the judgment, the\\ndistrict court saw the facts otherwise. Instead, the court ex-\\nplained, the evidence demonstrates that Weiss investigated\\nthe collectability of the judgment by contacting RMD and\\nlearning not only that Nutmeg’s judgment may be defective,\\nbut also that RMD had no assets in the United States. But\\nWeiss did not stop at RMD’s word. She went further by con-\\nsulting a collection agency, which confirmed that RMD was\\njudgment proof. She then conveyed this information to the\\ndistrict court handling the SEC matter, explaining that she\\nhad contacted third parties to inquire about their interest in\\npurchasing the judgment but was unable to find a buyer. The\\nplaintiffs, although plainly disagreeing with Weiss’s business\\njudgment, did not show that this diligence never occurred. So,\\neven when viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs,\\nthe record shows that Weiss took steps to collect on this judg-\\nment and ultimately decided it was not worth pursuing. The\\ndistrict court was on sound footing concluding that no rea-\\nsonable jury could find that Weiss willfully or even recklessly\\nbreached her fiduciary duties.\\n Similarly, in Count XI, the plaintiffs alleged that Weiss\\nbreached her fiduciary duties by failing to follow Goulding’s\\nadvice and “d[oing] nothing” to monetize a defaulted con-\\nvertible note issued by North Bay Resources. But here, too, we\\nsee the evidence much the same way as the district court. The\\nrecord shows that Weiss contacted North Bay and explained\\nthat, based on Nutmeg’s records, she believed the firm still\\nowed on the note. North Bay disagreed, taking the position\\n\\f16 Nos. 18-1740 & 18-1791\\n\\nthat the note had been satisfied with shares issued to Nutmeg.\\nIn a sworn declaration, Weiss explained that, based on her\\ndue diligence, she made the decision not to expend further\\nresources to pursue a claim against North Bay. An informed\\ndecision not to move forward with a particular course of ac-\\ntion falls short of demonstrating a willful and deliberate (or,\\nfor that matter, a grossly negligent) violation of her duties.\\n We likewise agree with the district court that Count VII\\n(the plaintiffs’ third failure to enforce claim) and Counts X,\\nXIV, and XVI (relating to lawsuits on behalf of the Funds) fail\\nfor the same reasons. In each instance, the evidence shows\\nthat Weiss investigated the potential claims or litigation op-\\nportunities, considered the strengths and weaknesses of avail-\\nable options, and weighed the costs of pursuing certain op-\\nportunities before exercising her business judgment. The\\nplaintiffs, while vigorously disagreeing with Weiss’s deci-\\nsions, did not bring forth evidence to show that a jury could\\nfind that those decisions reflected a willful, deliberate, or\\ngrossly negligent breach of her fiduciary duties.\\n B\\n The plaintiffs also brought a series of claims (in Counts VI,\\nVIII, and XVII) alleging that Weiss breached her duties by fail-\\ning to convert debt owed to Nutmeg or to certain funds into\\nstock to be sold on the open market. Here again, though, the\\ndistrict court got it right in concluding that the record evi-\\ndence requires a contrary conclusion.\\n The plaintiffs allege three instances where, as they would\\nhave it, Weiss should have converted certain debt to stock and\\nthen liquidated the equity at a profit. For example, the plain-\\ntiffs contend that Weiss breached her duties by settling a\\n\\fNos. 18-1740 & 18-1791 17\\n\\n$50,000 note owed by an entity named GoIP Global, rather\\nthan exercising a right to convert the note to stock. Yet even if\\nwe credit the plaintiffs’ view that it was both feasible and ad-\\nvantageous for Weiss to convert the GoIP debt and sell the\\nstock, we agree with the district court that the plaintiffs’ alle-\\ngations, at most, support an inference that Weiss exercised\\npoor judgment. But a poor business decision falls well short\\nof demonstrating either a willful and deliberate or even a\\ngrossly negligent breach of her duties.\\n At a more specific level, the record shows that Weiss did\\nconvert some of the GoIP debt and tried to convert the re-\\nmainder, only to find GoIP non-responsive. She then sought,\\nreceived, and followed professional investment advice about\\nwhat to do with the remaining debt. Even viewing the facts in\\nthe plaintiffs’ strongest favor, we cannot conclude that Weiss\\ncame anywhere close to willfully, deliberately, or even negli-\\ngently offending her fiduciary obligations: she retained—and\\nsought guidance from—an investment advisory firm, and\\nwhen faced with two choices, she chose the option advised by\\nthe firm. Absent from the record are facts showing that Weiss\\nintended to harm the Funds by settling the GoIP debt rather\\nthan undertaking conversion and liquidation transactions.\\nAnd the record shows the same level of diligence as to the\\nfacts underlying the allegations in Counts VIII and XVII.\\n C\\n The plaintiffs also devote substantial attention to three\\nspecific claims against the receiver. Once again, though, the\\ndistrict court properly saw no genuine issue of material fact\\npertinent to these claims.\\n\\f18 Nos. 18-1740 & 18-1791\\n\\n First, in Count IV, the plaintiffs allege that Weiss breached\\nher fiduciary duties by failing to receive court approval to pay\\nany fees exceeding a $150,000 cap imposed by the district\\ncourt to Crowe Horwath, the accounting firm that advised her\\nin the execution of her receivership responsibilities. While it\\nis undisputed that Weiss incurred $168,000 in advisory fees\\nbeyond the cap, we agree with the district court that no rea-\\nsonable jury could find that her doing so reflected an inten-\\ntional breach of her fiduciary duties. The court handling the\\nSEC matter appointed Crowe Horwath before Weiss became\\nreceiver and explicitly authorized her to continue using the\\nfirm. The record also shows that Crowe Horwath estimated\\nits fees at $168,000 to complete its outstanding work. Weiss\\nshared this information with the district court and kept the\\ncourt informed of what Crowe Horwath was doing, why the\\nwork was needed, and how much it would cost. She also\\nheeded the court’s instruction to take a “conservative ap-\\nproach” by submitting payment requests in installments as\\nCrowe performed its work. While it is clear that the plaintiffs\\nbelieve Crowe Horwath’s work was unnecessary, what is\\nmissing is evidence showing that Weiss’s continued use of\\nCrowe’s services reflected a willful, deliberate, or grossly neg-\\nligent flouting of the district court’s directions or her fiduciary\\nduties. Indeed, neither the district court overseeing the SEC\\nmatter nor the Commission itself took issue with Weiss’s han-\\ndling of the additional payments for Crowe Horwath’s ser-\\nvices.\\n Second, in Count IX, the plaintiffs allege that Weiss\\nbreached her fiduciary duties by terminating a transaction\\nthat would have enabled Inverso Corp., a corporate shell\\nowned by several Nutmeg funds, to be used as a vehicle for\\nan initial public offering. Notably, however, in the SEC’s\\n\\fNos. 18-1740 & 18-1791 19\\n\\nmotion to appoint Weiss as receiver, the Commission flagged\\nthe Inverso deal and directed Weiss to review it. Upon doing\\nso Weiss chose to halt the transaction because it “reeked of a\\nscam.” In her sworn declarations, Weiss provided a detailed\\nexplanation of why she did not approve the transaction: she\\nquestioned its legitimacy and determined the business plan\\nwas implausible because, among other things, it projected In-\\nverso would gain 5% of the global market share for multiple\\nsclerosis treatment in just two years and 5% of global cancer\\ntreatment revenues in just four years with a budget of only a\\nfew million dollars. No evidence suggests Weiss formed these\\nviews on a whim or held them in willful or deliberate (or\\ngrossly negligent) disregard of her duties as receiver.\\n Third, Count XIX alleged that Weiss breached her fiduciary\\nduties by expending attorneys’ fees on a frivolous motion to\\nshow cause. In April 2010, in the SEC matter, Weiss filed a mo-\\ntion for an order to show cause against Goulding for his fail-\\nure to cooperate with her. She pointed to 11 different in-\\nstances of his noncooperation, one of which involved locating\\nevidence of investor approval to modify the operating agree-\\nment for the Nutmeg/Mercury LLP Fund. As it turned out,\\nhowever, Weiss already had the relevant documents in the\\nfiles seized from Nutmeg. Goulding reacted to learning of this\\nmistake by urging the district court in the SEC case to sanction\\nWeiss. The district court denied the motion, explaining that\\nthere was “no evidence of an intentional fraud, concealment\\nor conspiracy” on Weiss’s part and because “there [was] no\\nsuggestion that all of the other issues raised in the [r]eceiver’s\\nmotion also were without merit.” We see no error with this\\nconclusion.\\n\\f20 Nos. 18-1740 & 18-1791\\n\\n IV\\n The plaintiffs’ amended complaints and arguments on ap-\\npeal are expansive. Based upon our review of the record and\\nthe parties’ briefs, we have focused only on those claims that\\nwe believe warrant discussion. But our ultimate conclusion—\\nthat no reasonable jury could find that Weiss engaged in a\\nwillful, deliberate, or even grossly negligent breach of a fidu-\\nciary duty—applies with equal force to the totality of the\\nplaintiffs’ claims on appeal. For these reasons, we AFFIRM.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3798,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4645958,"string":"4,645,958"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"Eric J. MAPES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of INDIANA, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Eric Mapes v. State of Indiana"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-08-06"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"19-1384"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before FLAUM, SYKES, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"PER CURIAM\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\n\\n\\nNo. 19-1384\\nERIC J. MAPES,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n\\n v.\\n\\nSTATE OF INDIANA, et al.,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division.\\n No. 1:19-cv-00691-JMS-TAB — Jane Magnus-Stinson, Chief Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n SUBMITTED JUNE 28, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 6, 2019 *\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before FLAUM, SYKES, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.\\n\\n\\n\\n*We agreed to decide this case without oral argument because the briefs\\nand record adequately present the facts and legal arguments and oral\\nargument would not significantly aid the court. FED. R. APP.\\nP. 34(a)(2)(C).\\n\\f2 No. 19-1384\\n\\n PER CURIAM. Eric Mapes was arrested for trespassing af-\\nter being refused service at a CVS store. He sued the State of\\nIndiana, CVS, and a number of individual defendants assert-\\ning a long list of grievances under federal and state law.\\nMapes asked the district court to recruit counsel for him. The\\ndistrict judge denied that request, dismissed Mapes’s com-\\nplaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim, and\\nsuggested several amendments to the complaint. Mapes did\\nnot heed that advice and now appeals the judge’s refusal to\\nrecruit counsel. We affirm. The judge did not abuse her\\ndiscretion when she denied his request for pro bono counsel,\\nprovided an opportunity to amend, and offered instructions\\non how best to do so without a lawyer.\\n I. Background\\n At this early stage, we accept the allegations in Mapes’s\\ncomplaint as true. See Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768, 774 (7th\\nCir. 2015). On January 21, 2019, CVS employees refused to\\nissue Mapes a MoneyGram money transfer, leading to a\\nverbal conflict. The store manager contacted the police, who\\narrested Mapes for trespassing. They took Mapes to the\\nMarion County jail, where guards assaulted him and medi-\\ncal staff ignored his physical disabilities.\\n About three weeks later, Mapes sued the State of Indiana,\\nCVS, and others for violating what he calls “the law they are\\nrequired to [uphold] when dealing with disabled people,”\\nincluding the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”),\\namong other claims. 1 He simultaneously moved for the\\n\\n1 The defendants were not served with process in the district court and\\nare not participating in this appeal.\\n\\fNo. 19-1384 3\\n\\nappointment of counsel. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (“The\\ncourt may request an attorney to represent any person\\nunable to afford counsel.”). Mapes asserted the need for pro\\nbono representation based on his poor hearing, social anxie-\\nty, a speech disorder, and an unidentified mental disability.\\n The judge screened and dismissed the complaint without\\nprejudice for failure to state a claim, see id. § 1915(e)(2), and\\nadvised Mapes on how to amend it. The judge informed\\nMapes that his amended complaint “should set forth what\\nhappened during the incident and the facts that support his\\nbelief that CVS refused to serve him because of his disabil-\\nity.” She explained that Mapes should identify the people\\nwho harmed him and describe how they did so. Finally, she\\ntold Mapes to bring unrelated claims in separate lawsuits.\\nThe judge’s order gave Mapes until March 22 to file an\\namended complaint. Failure to do so would “result in the\\ndismissal of [his suit] without further notice or opportunity\\nto show cause.”\\n In that same order, the judge denied Mapes’s request for\\nappointed counsel. Relying on Kadamovas v. Stevens, 706 F.3d\\n843 (7th Cir. 2013), she described the request as “premature.”\\nMapes hadn’t yet filed a “viable complaint.” And because\\nthe defendants had not yet responded to the complaint, or\\neven been served with process, the judge could not reliably\\nassess Mapes’s need for an attorney. Mapes could renew his\\nmotion after filing an amended pleading. Rather than at-\\ntempt to follow the judge’s amendment instructions, Mapes\\nappealed.\\n\\f4 No. 19-1384\\n\\n II. Discussion\\n First, a word on our jurisdiction: An order dismissing a\\nsuit without prejudice ordinarily is not final and thus not\\nappealable unless it effectively ends the litigation. See\\n28 U.S.C. § 1291; Mostly Memories, Inc. v. For Your Ease Only,\\nInc., 526 F.3d 1093, 1097 (7th Cir. 2008). When a district judge\\ndismisses a suit but provides an opportunity and a deadline\\nto cure deficiencies, the conditional order becomes final after\\nthe deadline passes. Shott v. Katz, 829 F.3d 494, 496 (7th Cir.\\n2016). Mapes did not file an amended complaint before the\\ncourt-imposed deadline, so we have jurisdiction.\\n Mapes argues that the judge violated the ADA by deny-\\ning his request for counsel. The ADA and relevant regula-\\ntions require public entities, including courts, to make\\n“reasonable modifications” to avoid disability-based dis-\\ncrimination. See 42 U.S.C. § 12132; 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7);\\nTennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509, 531–34 (2004). But\\n§ 1915(e)(1)—not the ADA—governs a court’s discretion to\\nrecruit counsel for a pro se litigant. We’ve explained that a\\ndistrict judge confronted with a motion for pro bono counsel\\nmust assess (1) whether “the indigent plaintiff made a\\nreasonable attempt to obtain counsel or [had] been effective-\\nly precluded from doing so; and if so, (2) given the difficulty\\nof the case, [whether] the plaintiff appear[s] competent to\\nlitigate it himself.” Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654 (7th Cir.\\n2007) (en banc) (citing Farmer v. Haas, 990 F.2d 319, 321–22\\n(7th Cir. 1993)). This standard takes account of mental or\\nphysical capabilities that may affect a plaintiff’s ability to\\nlitigate. See id. at 659–60.\\n The judge did not abuse her discretion when she denied\\nMapes’s request for counsel and advised him on how to file\\n\\fNo. 19-1384 5\\n\\nan amended complaint. “The inquiry into the plaintiff’s\\ncapacity to handle his own case is a practical one, made in\\nlight of whatever relevant evidence is available on the\\nquestion.” Id. at 655. Mapes demonstrated that he was\\nphysically able to file a complaint and mentally able to recall\\nthe events of January 21, 2019. The judge was not “required\\nto offer [Mapes] legal guidance on whether and how to\\namend [his] pleadings,” Kiebala v. Boris, 928 F.3d 680, 684\\n(7th Cir. 2019), and under these circumstances, denying\\nMapes’s request for counsel and advising him on how to\\ncure his complaint’s deficiencies was entirely reasonable. If\\nfor any reason Mapes could not comply with the judge’s\\npleading instructions, he needed to explain why and renew\\nhis request for appointed counsel. See Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 659.\\nHe did neither. And Mapes hasn’t argued on appeal that he\\nwas incapable of following the judge’s directions.\\n One final point bears mentioning. In denying the request\\nfor pro bono counsel, the judge cited a passage from\\nKadamovas: “[U]ntil the defendants respond to the complaint,\\nthe [pro se] plaintiff’s need for assistance of counsel …\\ncannot be gauged.” 706 F.3d at 846. That language simply\\nacknowledges the difficulty of accurately evaluating the\\nneed for counsel in the early stages of pro se litigation.\\nBecause “[t]he inquiry into plaintiff competence and case\\ndifficulty is particularized to the person and case before the\\ncourt,” it is not susceptible to judge-made bright-line rules.\\nPruitt, 503 F.3d at 656. So it’s incorrect to read this sentence\\nin Kadamovas as restricting a district judge’s discretion to\\nrecruit counsel for a deserving plaintiff until after the de-\\nfendant has answered the complaint. While such cases may\\nbe unusual, a judge may recruit counsel to help a pro se\\nlitigant amend his complaint. See Perez, 792 F.3d at 784\\n\\f6 No. 19-1384\\n\\n(explaining that “[w]here an inmate alleges an objectively\\nserious medical condition, it may be better to appoint coun-\\nsel—so that he or she can investigate and flesh out any claim\\nthat may exist—than to dismiss a potentially meritorious\\nclaim”).\\n AFFIRMED\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4423211/\", \"author_raw\": \"PER CURIAM\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"FLAUM"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"SYKES"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"HAMILTON"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"FLAUM\": \", Circuit\", \"SYKES\": \", Circuit\", \"HAMILTON\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645958/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":8,"string":"8"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Eric J. MAPES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of INDIANA, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-08-06\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\n\n\nNo. 19-1384\nERIC J. MAPES,\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\n\n v.\n\nSTATE OF INDIANA, et al.,\n Defendants-Appellees.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division.\n No. 1:19-cv-00691-JMS-TAB — Jane Magnus-Stinson, Chief Judge.\n ____________________\n\n SUBMITTED JUNE 28, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 6, 2019 *\n ____________________\n\n Before FLAUM, SYKES, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.\n\n\n\n*We agreed to decide this case without oral argument because the briefs\nand record adequately present the facts and legal arguments and oral\nargument would not significantly aid the court. FED. R. APP.\nP. 34(a)(2)(C).\n\f2 No. 19-1384\n\n PER CURIAM. Eric Mapes was arrested for trespassing af-\nter being refused service at a CVS store. He sued the State of\nIndiana, CVS, and a number of individual defendants assert-\ning a long list of grievances under federal and state law.\nMapes asked the district court to recruit counsel for him. The\ndistrict judge denied that request, dismissed Mapes’s com-\nplaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim, and\nsuggested several amendments to the complaint. Mapes did\nnot heed that advice and now appeals the judge’s refusal to\nrecruit counsel. We affirm. The judge did not abuse her\ndiscretion when she denied his request for pro bono counsel,\nprovided an opportunity to amend, and offered instructions\non how best to do so without a lawyer.\n I. Background\n At this early stage, we accept the allegations in Mapes’s\ncomplaint as true. See Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768, 774 (7th\nCir. 2015). On January 21, 2019, CVS employees refused to\nissue Mapes a MoneyGram money transfer, leading to a\nverbal conflict. The store manager contacted the police, who\narrested Mapes for trespassing. They took Mapes to the\nMarion County jail, where guards assaulted him and medi-\ncal staff ignored his physical disabilities.\n About three weeks later, Mapes sued the State of Indiana,\nCVS, and others for violating what he calls “the law they are\nrequired to [uphold] when dealing with disabled people,”\nincluding the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”),\namong other claims. 1 He simultaneously moved for the\n\n1 The defendants were not served with process in the district court and\nare not participating in this appeal.\n\fNo. 19-1384 3\n\nappointment of counsel. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (“The\ncourt may request an attorney to represent any person\nunable to afford counsel.”). Mapes asserted the need for pro\nbono representation based on his poor hearing, social anxie-\nty, a speech disorder, and an unidentified mental disability.\n The judge screened and dismissed the complaint without\nprejudice for failure to state a claim, see id. § 1915(e)(2), and\nadvised Mapes on how to amend it. The judge informed\nMapes that his amended complaint “should set forth what\nhappened during the incident and the facts that support his\nbelief that CVS refused to serve him because of his disabil-\nity.” She explained that Mapes should identify the people\nwho harmed him and describe how they did so. Finally, she\ntold Mapes to bring unrelated claims in separate lawsuits.\nThe judge’s order gave Mapes until March 22 to file an\namended complaint. Failure to do so would “result in the\ndismissal of [his suit] without further notice or opportunity\nto show cause.”\n In that same order, the judge denied Mapes’s request for\nappointed counsel. Relying on Kadamovas v. Stevens, 706 F.3d\n843 (7th Cir. 2013), she described the request as “premature.”\nMapes hadn’t yet filed a “viable complaint.” And because\nthe defendants had not yet responded to the complaint, or\neven been served with process, the judge could not reliably\nassess Mapes’s need for an attorney. Mapes could renew his\nmotion after filing an amended pleading. Rather than at-\ntempt to follow the judge’s amendment instructions, Mapes\nappealed.\n\f4 No. 19-1384\n\n II. Discussion\n First, a word on our jurisdiction: An order dismissing a\nsuit without prejudice ordinarily is not final and thus not\nappealable unless it effectively ends the litigation. See\n28 U.S.C. § 1291; Mostly Memories, Inc. v. For Your Ease Only,\nInc., 526 F.3d 1093, 1097 (7th Cir. 2008). When a district judge\ndismisses a suit but provides an opportunity and a deadline\nto cure deficiencies, the conditional order becomes final after\nthe deadline passes. Shott v. Katz, 829 F.3d 494, 496 (7th Cir.\n2016). Mapes did not file an amended complaint before the\ncourt-imposed deadline, so we have jurisdiction.\n Mapes argues that the judge violated the ADA by deny-\ning his request for counsel. The ADA and relevant regula-\ntions require public entities, including courts, to make\n“reasonable modifications” to avoid disability-based dis-\ncrimination. See 42 U.S.C. § 12132; 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7);\nTennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509, 531–34 (2004). But\n§ 1915(e)(1)—not the ADA—governs a court’s discretion to\nrecruit counsel for a pro se litigant. We’ve explained that a\ndistrict judge confronted with a motion for pro bono counsel\nmust assess (1) whether “the indigent plaintiff made a\nreasonable attempt to obtain counsel or [had] been effective-\nly precluded from doing so; and if so, (2) given the difficulty\nof the case, [whether] the plaintiff appear[s] competent to\nlitigate it himself.” Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654 (7th Cir.\n2007) (en banc) (citing Farmer v. Haas, 990 F.2d 319, 321–22\n(7th Cir. 1993)). This standard takes account of mental or\nphysical capabilities that may affect a plaintiff’s ability to\nlitigate. See id. at 659–60.\n The judge did not abuse her discretion when she denied\nMapes’s request for counsel and advised him on how to file\n\fNo. 19-1384 5\n\nan amended complaint. “The inquiry into the plaintiff’s\ncapacity to handle his own case is a practical one, made in\nlight of whatever relevant evidence is available on the\nquestion.” Id. at 655. Mapes demonstrated that he was\nphysically able to file a complaint and mentally able to recall\nthe events of January 21, 2019. The judge was not “required\nto offer [Mapes] legal guidance on whether and how to\namend [his] pleadings,” Kiebala v. Boris, 928 F.3d 680, 684\n(7th Cir. 2019), and under these circumstances, denying\nMapes’s request for counsel and advising him on how to\ncure his complaint’s deficiencies was entirely reasonable. If\nfor any reason Mapes could not comply with the judge’s\npleading instructions, he needed to explain why and renew\nhis request for appointed counsel. See Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 659.\nHe did neither. And Mapes hasn’t argued on appeal that he\nwas incapable of following the judge’s directions.\n One final point bears mentioning. In denying the request\nfor pro bono counsel, the judge cited a passage from\nKadamovas: “[U]ntil the defendants respond to the complaint,\nthe [pro se] plaintiff’s need for assistance of counsel …\ncannot be gauged.” 706 F.3d at 846. That language simply\nacknowledges the difficulty of accurately evaluating the\nneed for counsel in the early stages of pro se litigation.\nBecause “[t]he inquiry into plaintiff competence and case\ndifficulty is particularized to the person and case before the\ncourt,” it is not susceptible to judge-made bright-line rules.\nPruitt, 503 F.3d at 656. So it’s incorrect to read this sentence\nin Kadamovas as restricting a district judge’s discretion to\nrecruit counsel for a deserving plaintiff until after the de-\nfendant has answered the complaint. While such cases may\nbe unusual, a judge may recruit counsel to help a pro se\nlitigant amend his complaint. See Perez, 792 F.3d at 784\n\f6 No. 19-1384\n\n(explaining that “[w]here an inmate alleges an objectively\nserious medical condition, it may be better to appoint coun-\nsel—so that he or she can investigate and flesh out any claim\nthat may exist—than to dismiss a potentially meritorious\nclaim”).\n AFFIRMED\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Eric J. MAPES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of INDIANA, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-08-06\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\n\\n\\nNo. 19-1384\\nERIC J. MAPES,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n\\n v.\\n\\nSTATE OF INDIANA, et al.,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division.\\n No. 1:19-cv-00691-JMS-TAB — Jane Magnus-Stinson, Chief Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n SUBMITTED JUNE 28, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 6, 2019 *\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before FLAUM, SYKES, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.\\n\\n\\n\\n*We agreed to decide this case without oral argument because the briefs\\nand record adequately present the facts and legal arguments and oral\\nargument would not significantly aid the court. FED. R. APP.\\nP. 34(a)(2)(C).\\n\\f2 No. 19-1384\\n\\n PER CURIAM. Eric Mapes was arrested for trespassing af-\\nter being refused service at a CVS store. He sued the State of\\nIndiana, CVS, and a number of individual defendants assert-\\ning a long list of grievances under federal and state law.\\nMapes asked the district court to recruit counsel for him. The\\ndistrict judge denied that request, dismissed Mapes’s com-\\nplaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim, and\\nsuggested several amendments to the complaint. Mapes did\\nnot heed that advice and now appeals the judge’s refusal to\\nrecruit counsel. We affirm. The judge did not abuse her\\ndiscretion when she denied his request for pro bono counsel,\\nprovided an opportunity to amend, and offered instructions\\non how best to do so without a lawyer.\\n I. Background\\n At this early stage, we accept the allegations in Mapes’s\\ncomplaint as true. See Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768, 774 (7th\\nCir. 2015). On January 21, 2019, CVS employees refused to\\nissue Mapes a MoneyGram money transfer, leading to a\\nverbal conflict. The store manager contacted the police, who\\narrested Mapes for trespassing. They took Mapes to the\\nMarion County jail, where guards assaulted him and medi-\\ncal staff ignored his physical disabilities.\\n About three weeks later, Mapes sued the State of Indiana,\\nCVS, and others for violating what he calls “the law they are\\nrequired to [uphold] when dealing with disabled people,”\\nincluding the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”),\\namong other claims. 1 He simultaneously moved for the\\n\\n1 The defendants were not served with process in the district court and\\nare not participating in this appeal.\\n\\fNo. 19-1384 3\\n\\nappointment of counsel. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (“The\\ncourt may request an attorney to represent any person\\nunable to afford counsel.”). Mapes asserted the need for pro\\nbono representation based on his poor hearing, social anxie-\\nty, a speech disorder, and an unidentified mental disability.\\n The judge screened and dismissed the complaint without\\nprejudice for failure to state a claim, see id. § 1915(e)(2), and\\nadvised Mapes on how to amend it. The judge informed\\nMapes that his amended complaint “should set forth what\\nhappened during the incident and the facts that support his\\nbelief that CVS refused to serve him because of his disabil-\\nity.” She explained that Mapes should identify the people\\nwho harmed him and describe how they did so. Finally, she\\ntold Mapes to bring unrelated claims in separate lawsuits.\\nThe judge’s order gave Mapes until March 22 to file an\\namended complaint. Failure to do so would “result in the\\ndismissal of [his suit] without further notice or opportunity\\nto show cause.”\\n In that same order, the judge denied Mapes’s request for\\nappointed counsel. Relying on Kadamovas v. Stevens, 706 F.3d\\n843 (7th Cir. 2013), she described the request as “premature.”\\nMapes hadn’t yet filed a “viable complaint.” And because\\nthe defendants had not yet responded to the complaint, or\\neven been served with process, the judge could not reliably\\nassess Mapes’s need for an attorney. Mapes could renew his\\nmotion after filing an amended pleading. Rather than at-\\ntempt to follow the judge’s amendment instructions, Mapes\\nappealed.\\n\\f4 No. 19-1384\\n\\n II. Discussion\\n First, a word on our jurisdiction: An order dismissing a\\nsuit without prejudice ordinarily is not final and thus not\\nappealable unless it effectively ends the litigation. See\\n28 U.S.C. § 1291; Mostly Memories, Inc. v. For Your Ease Only,\\nInc., 526 F.3d 1093, 1097 (7th Cir. 2008). When a district judge\\ndismisses a suit but provides an opportunity and a deadline\\nto cure deficiencies, the conditional order becomes final after\\nthe deadline passes. Shott v. Katz, 829 F.3d 494, 496 (7th Cir.\\n2016). Mapes did not file an amended complaint before the\\ncourt-imposed deadline, so we have jurisdiction.\\n Mapes argues that the judge violated the ADA by deny-\\ning his request for counsel. The ADA and relevant regula-\\ntions require public entities, including courts, to make\\n“reasonable modifications” to avoid disability-based dis-\\ncrimination. See 42 U.S.C. § 12132; 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7);\\nTennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509, 531–34 (2004). But\\n§ 1915(e)(1)—not the ADA—governs a court’s discretion to\\nrecruit counsel for a pro se litigant. We’ve explained that a\\ndistrict judge confronted with a motion for pro bono counsel\\nmust assess (1) whether “the indigent plaintiff made a\\nreasonable attempt to obtain counsel or [had] been effective-\\nly precluded from doing so; and if so, (2) given the difficulty\\nof the case, [whether] the plaintiff appear[s] competent to\\nlitigate it himself.” Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654 (7th Cir.\\n2007) (en banc) (citing Farmer v. Haas, 990 F.2d 319, 321–22\\n(7th Cir. 1993)). This standard takes account of mental or\\nphysical capabilities that may affect a plaintiff’s ability to\\nlitigate. See id. at 659–60.\\n The judge did not abuse her discretion when she denied\\nMapes’s request for counsel and advised him on how to file\\n\\fNo. 19-1384 5\\n\\nan amended complaint. “The inquiry into the plaintiff’s\\ncapacity to handle his own case is a practical one, made in\\nlight of whatever relevant evidence is available on the\\nquestion.” Id. at 655. Mapes demonstrated that he was\\nphysically able to file a complaint and mentally able to recall\\nthe events of January 21, 2019. The judge was not “required\\nto offer [Mapes] legal guidance on whether and how to\\namend [his] pleadings,” Kiebala v. Boris, 928 F.3d 680, 684\\n(7th Cir. 2019), and under these circumstances, denying\\nMapes’s request for counsel and advising him on how to\\ncure his complaint’s deficiencies was entirely reasonable. If\\nfor any reason Mapes could not comply with the judge’s\\npleading instructions, he needed to explain why and renew\\nhis request for appointed counsel. See Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 659.\\nHe did neither. And Mapes hasn’t argued on appeal that he\\nwas incapable of following the judge’s directions.\\n One final point bears mentioning. In denying the request\\nfor pro bono counsel, the judge cited a passage from\\nKadamovas: “[U]ntil the defendants respond to the complaint,\\nthe [pro se] plaintiff’s need for assistance of counsel …\\ncannot be gauged.” 706 F.3d at 846. That language simply\\nacknowledges the difficulty of accurately evaluating the\\nneed for counsel in the early stages of pro se litigation.\\nBecause “[t]he inquiry into plaintiff competence and case\\ndifficulty is particularized to the person and case before the\\ncourt,” it is not susceptible to judge-made bright-line rules.\\nPruitt, 503 F.3d at 656. So it’s incorrect to read this sentence\\nin Kadamovas as restricting a district judge’s discretion to\\nrecruit counsel for a deserving plaintiff until after the de-\\nfendant has answered the complaint. While such cases may\\nbe unusual, a judge may recruit counsel to help a pro se\\nlitigant amend his complaint. See Perez, 792 F.3d at 784\\n\\f6 No. 19-1384\\n\\n(explaining that “[w]here an inmate alleges an objectively\\nserious medical condition, it may be better to appoint coun-\\nsel—so that he or she can investigate and flesh out any claim\\nthat may exist—than to dismiss a potentially meritorious\\nclaim”).\\n AFFIRMED\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":3799,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4645976,"string":"4,645,976"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"Louis WOZNIAK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ilesanmi ADESIDA, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Louis Wozniak v. Ilesanmi Adesida"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-08-06"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-3315"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Wood, Easterbrook, Hamilton\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"Frank Hoover Easterbrook\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\n\\nNo. 18-3315\\nLOUIS WOZNIAK,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n\\n v.\\n\\nILESANMI ADESIDA, et al.,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Central District of Illinois.\\n No. 15-cv-2275 — Colin S. Bruce, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED MAY 15, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 6, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and EASTERBROOK and\\nHAMILTON, Circuit Judges.\\n EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. The University of Illinois\\nfired Louis Wozniak in 2013. Until then he had tenure on the\\nfaculty of the College of Engineering. But after Wozniak\\nwaged an extended campaign against students who did not\\ngive him an award, the University’s Board of Trustees decid-\\ned that he had violated the institution’s norms and rules, in-\\ncluding the need to treat students with respect. As he had\\n\\f2 No. 18-3315\\n\\ndone before when the University insisted that he follow\\nschool policies, Wozniak responded with a federal lawsuit.\\nHe lost the last time, see Wozniak v. Conry, 236 F.3d 888 (7th\\nCir. 2001), and loses this time too.\\n The district court’s lengthy opinion granting summary\\njudgment to the defendants, 368 F. Supp. 3d 1217 (C.D. Ill.\\n2018), sets out all the pertinent facts, and then some, so we\\ncan be brief. Two student honor societies at the College of\\nEngineering jointly give an annual teaching award. In spring\\n2009 they presented the award to Professor Ali E. Abbas.\\nWozniak thought that he should have received the award\\nand set out to investigate. He called the head of one honor\\nsociety to his office, aggressively interrogated her, got her to\\ncry, and repeated the process with one of the University’s\\nemployees (who did not cry but was distressed). He then\\nposted on his website information criticizing the student\\nheads of the honor societies and enabling readers to deter-\\nmine their identities. That violated the University’s policies\\nas well as conditions adached to the University’s federal\\ngrants. 20 U.S.C. §1232g(b).\\n The College’s Dean started tenure-revocation proceed-\\nings. The University’s Commidee on Academic Freedom and\\nTenure investigated, held hearings, and received submis-\\nsions from the Interim Chancellor and Wozniak. The Com-\\nmidee concluded that Wozniak had engaged in several kinds\\nof misconduct but that loss of tenure would be an excessive\\nresponse. The University’s President presented the mader to\\nthe Board of Trustees, which held ultimate authority. It con-\\nducted its own hearing, including live testimony and cross-\\nexamination. Disagreeing with the Commidee, the Board\\nthought Wozniak’s conduct a firing offense.\\n\\fNo. 18-3315 3\\n\\n One reason for the difference in opinion is what Wozniak\\ndid after the Commidee issued its report: he posted the en-\\ntire document, and all evidence the Commidee received, on\\nhis website, revealing the identities of the students involved\\nand the distress they felt at Wozniak’s conduct. He included\\na link to this material in the signature block of every email\\nhe sent from his University account. Wozniak did this after\\nthe Commidee informed him that disseminating identifying\\ninformation about the students would be grounds for dis-\\nmissal. Told by the Dean to remove this material, Wozniak\\nrefused. Inconsiderate and insubordinate is the most chari-\\ntable description one can adach to this conduct.\\n Before the Commidee’s hearing, Wozniak had sought to\\ninterrogate the students further about the circumstances\\nleading to the award. After they refused to speak with him,\\nWozniak filed a civil suit in state court seeking damages\\nfrom them. He concedes that the sole reason for filing this\\nsuit was to get a judicial order requiring the students to sit\\nfor depositions, and that he planned to dismiss the suit as\\nsoon as that had been done. In other words, Wozniak con-\\ncedes commiding a tort against the students. (The tort is\\nabuse of process.) In the event, the state judge dismissed the\\nsuit as frivolous before depositions occurred.\\n The Board concluded that students should not be treated\\nas Wozniak had done and that students’ educational lives\\nwould be beder without him on the faculty. Wozniak does\\nnot contend that the Board’s decision violated his tenure\\ncontract; instead he accuses the University of violating the\\nConstitution of the United States.\\n His lead argument is that the First Amendment (applied\\nto the states through the Fourteenth) entitles faculty mem-\\n\\f4 No. 18-3315\\n\\nbers to make available to the public any information they\\nplease, no mader how embarrassing or distressful to stu-\\ndents. This argument, even if correct, would not carry the\\nday for him: he was fired for intentionally causing hurt to\\nstudents, and refusing to follow the Dean’s instructions, not\\nsimply for publicizing the effects of his actions. What’s more,\\nthe argument is not correct.\\n Wozniak acted in his capacity as a teacher. The subject of\\nthe award was teaching; he called students into his faculty\\noffice (a power he possessed by virtue of his job) and used\\nhis position to inflict the injuries that precipitated his dis-\\ncharge. Garce?i v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 421 (2006), holds that\\nthe First Amendment does not govern how employers re-\\nspond to speech that is part of a public employee’s job.\\nWozniak tells us that his conduct was not part of his duties,\\nand in a sense this is right: it did not concern how he ran his\\nclassroom, graded exams, assisted students in conducting\\nexperiments or writing papers, or conducted his own re-\\nsearch and scholarship. Those are core academic duties. Yet\\nhow faculty members relate to students is part of their jobs,\\nwhich makes Ceballos applicable. See Brown v. Chicago Board\\nof Education, 824 F.3d 713, 715 (7th Cir. 2016). Professors who\\nharass and humiliate students cannot successfully teach\\nthem, and a shell-shocked student may have difficulty learn-\\ning in other professors’ classes. A university that permits\\nprofessors to degrade students and commit torts against\\nthem cannot fulfill its educational functions.\\n There is another route to the same conclusion. Speech\\nthat concerns personal job-related maders is outside the\\nscope of the First Amendment, even if that speech is not\\namong the job’s duties. See, e.g., Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S.\\n\\fNo. 18-3315 5\\n\\n138 (1983). Whether an award by two student societies (ac-\\ncompanied by $500 and a plaque) went to Abbas or to Woz-\\nniak may have been important to Wozniak, but it is not a\\nmader of public concern. Employers can insist that such\\nmaders of personnel administration be handled confidential-\\nly, using the employer’s preferred means. See, e.g., Bivens v.\\nTrent, 591 F.3d 555, 560–62 (7th Cir. 2010). By humiliating\\nstudents as a mader of self-gratification and persisting in\\ndefiance of the Dean’s instructions, Wozniak left himself\\nopen to discipline consistent with the Constitution.\\n Wozniak’s second argument is that the Board violated\\nthe Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Ten-\\nured professors at public universities have property interests\\nin their jobs and are entitled to notice and an opportunity for\\na hearing before they may be deprived of that interest.\\nCompare Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972), with\\nPerry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 (1972). But the Dean gave\\nWozniak formal notice, and he then had two hearings—one\\nbefore the Commidee and one before the Board. At each he\\nwas represented by counsel and allowed to call witnesses\\nand present argument. He was entitled as well to an impar-\\ntial decisionmaker, see Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556\\nU.S. 868 (2009); Peters v. Kiff, 407 U.S. 493 (1972), and the\\nUniversity honored that entitlement: Wozniak does not con-\\ntend that any member of the Board was biased or otherwise\\ndisqualified. He does complain about one member of the\\nCommidee, but its recommendation was favorable to him,\\nand it was also not the decisionmaker.\\n We have said enough to show that the due-process claim\\nmust be resolved in the University’s favor. Wozniak con-\\ntends that the Commidee and Board did not follow all of the\\n\\f6 No. 18-3315\\n\\nUniversity’s rules and regulations for tenure-revocation pro-\\nceedings, but this has nothing to do with the Constitution.\\nThe meaning of the Due Process Clause is a mader of federal\\nlaw, and a constitutional suit is not a way to enforce state\\nlaw through the back door. See, e.g., Snowden v. Hughes, 321\\nU.S. 1, 11 (1944); Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183, 192–96 (1984);\\nArchie v. Racine, 847 F.2d 1211, 1215–18 (7th Cir. 1988) (en\\nbanc); Tucker v. Chicago, 907 F.3d 487, 494–95 (7th Cir. 2018)\\n(citing other decisions). (Wozniak could not use federal liti-\\ngation to enforce state law directly against a part of the state,\\nsee Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S.\\n89, 103–23 (1984).) Wozniak complains that the Board did\\nnot permit him to call every witness he wanted to present.\\nBut the Due Process Clause does not regulate the hearing’s\\nevery detail. Even in federal court—indeed, even in a crimi-\\nnal prosecution, where procedural protections are at their\\nmaximum—the judge may exclude proffered evidence as\\nirrelevant or cumulative, see Fed. R. Evid. 402, 403, or for\\nother reasons laid out in the Rules of Evidence.\\n The Board received the Commidee’s report and its\\nlengthy evidentiary record and heard enough additional tes-\\ntimony to permit it to make an intelligent decision. The Con-\\nstitution does not require the Board to take testimony from\\nthe Commidee’s members. (Again this is not required, in-\\ndeed usually is not allowed, in court, where judges make de-\\ncisions based on administrative records without receiving\\ndecisionmakers’ testimony. See, e.g., Citizens to Preserve\\nOverton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 420 (1971).) Likewise\\nit is irrelevant who prepared initial drafts of the opinions for\\nthe Commidee or the Board. The members of the Federal\\nCommunications Commission do not necessarily draft their\\nown opinions (neither do all federal judges), but this does\\n\\fNo. 18-3315 7\\n\\nnot open them to constitutional adack. The University went\\nwell beyond the constitutional minimum.\\n Wozniak’s remaining arguments do not require discus-\\nsion.\\n AFFIRMED\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4423229/\", \"author_raw\": \"Frank Hoover Easterbrook\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"WOOD"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"EASTERBROOK"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"HAMILTON"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645976/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":8,"string":"8"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Louis WOZNIAK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ilesanmi ADESIDA, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-08-06\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\n\nNo. 18-3315\nLOUIS WOZNIAK,\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\n\n v.\n\nILESANMI ADESIDA, et al.,\n Defendants-Appellees.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court\n for the Central District of Illinois.\n No. 15-cv-2275 — Colin S. Bruce, Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED MAY 15, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 6, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and EASTERBROOK and\nHAMILTON, Circuit Judges.\n EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. The University of Illinois\nfired Louis Wozniak in 2013. Until then he had tenure on the\nfaculty of the College of Engineering. But after Wozniak\nwaged an extended campaign against students who did not\ngive him an award, the University’s Board of Trustees decid-\ned that he had violated the institution’s norms and rules, in-\ncluding the need to treat students with respect. As he had\n\f2 No. 18-3315\n\ndone before when the University insisted that he follow\nschool policies, Wozniak responded with a federal lawsuit.\nHe lost the last time, see Wozniak v. Conry, 236 F.3d 888 (7th\nCir. 2001), and loses this time too.\n The district court’s lengthy opinion granting summary\njudgment to the defendants, 368 F. Supp. 3d 1217 (C.D. Ill.\n2018), sets out all the pertinent facts, and then some, so we\ncan be brief. Two student honor societies at the College of\nEngineering jointly give an annual teaching award. In spring\n2009 they presented the award to Professor Ali E. Abbas.\nWozniak thought that he should have received the award\nand set out to investigate. He called the head of one honor\nsociety to his office, aggressively interrogated her, got her to\ncry, and repeated the process with one of the University’s\nemployees (who did not cry but was distressed). He then\nposted on his website information criticizing the student\nheads of the honor societies and enabling readers to deter-\nmine their identities. That violated the University’s policies\nas well as conditions adached to the University’s federal\ngrants. 20 U.S.C. §1232g(b).\n The College’s Dean started tenure-revocation proceed-\nings. The University’s Commidee on Academic Freedom and\nTenure investigated, held hearings, and received submis-\nsions from the Interim Chancellor and Wozniak. The Com-\nmidee concluded that Wozniak had engaged in several kinds\nof misconduct but that loss of tenure would be an excessive\nresponse. The University’s President presented the mader to\nthe Board of Trustees, which held ultimate authority. It con-\nducted its own hearing, including live testimony and cross-\nexamination. Disagreeing with the Commidee, the Board\nthought Wozniak’s conduct a firing offense.\n\fNo. 18-3315 3\n\n One reason for the difference in opinion is what Wozniak\ndid after the Commidee issued its report: he posted the en-\ntire document, and all evidence the Commidee received, on\nhis website, revealing the identities of the students involved\nand the distress they felt at Wozniak’s conduct. He included\na link to this material in the signature block of every email\nhe sent from his University account. Wozniak did this after\nthe Commidee informed him that disseminating identifying\ninformation about the students would be grounds for dis-\nmissal. Told by the Dean to remove this material, Wozniak\nrefused. Inconsiderate and insubordinate is the most chari-\ntable description one can adach to this conduct.\n Before the Commidee’s hearing, Wozniak had sought to\ninterrogate the students further about the circumstances\nleading to the award. After they refused to speak with him,\nWozniak filed a civil suit in state court seeking damages\nfrom them. He concedes that the sole reason for filing this\nsuit was to get a judicial order requiring the students to sit\nfor depositions, and that he planned to dismiss the suit as\nsoon as that had been done. In other words, Wozniak con-\ncedes commiding a tort against the students. (The tort is\nabuse of process.) In the event, the state judge dismissed the\nsuit as frivolous before depositions occurred.\n The Board concluded that students should not be treated\nas Wozniak had done and that students’ educational lives\nwould be beder without him on the faculty. Wozniak does\nnot contend that the Board’s decision violated his tenure\ncontract; instead he accuses the University of violating the\nConstitution of the United States.\n His lead argument is that the First Amendment (applied\nto the states through the Fourteenth) entitles faculty mem-\n\f4 No. 18-3315\n\nbers to make available to the public any information they\nplease, no mader how embarrassing or distressful to stu-\ndents. This argument, even if correct, would not carry the\nday for him: he was fired for intentionally causing hurt to\nstudents, and refusing to follow the Dean’s instructions, not\nsimply for publicizing the effects of his actions. What’s more,\nthe argument is not correct.\n Wozniak acted in his capacity as a teacher. The subject of\nthe award was teaching; he called students into his faculty\noffice (a power he possessed by virtue of his job) and used\nhis position to inflict the injuries that precipitated his dis-\ncharge. Garce?i v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 421 (2006), holds that\nthe First Amendment does not govern how employers re-\nspond to speech that is part of a public employee’s job.\nWozniak tells us that his conduct was not part of his duties,\nand in a sense this is right: it did not concern how he ran his\nclassroom, graded exams, assisted students in conducting\nexperiments or writing papers, or conducted his own re-\nsearch and scholarship. Those are core academic duties. Yet\nhow faculty members relate to students is part of their jobs,\nwhich makes Ceballos applicable. See Brown v. Chicago Board\nof Education, 824 F.3d 713, 715 (7th Cir. 2016). Professors who\nharass and humiliate students cannot successfully teach\nthem, and a shell-shocked student may have difficulty learn-\ning in other professors’ classes. A university that permits\nprofessors to degrade students and commit torts against\nthem cannot fulfill its educational functions.\n There is another route to the same conclusion. Speech\nthat concerns personal job-related maders is outside the\nscope of the First Amendment, even if that speech is not\namong the job’s duties. See, e.g., Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S.\n\fNo. 18-3315 5\n\n138 (1983). Whether an award by two student societies (ac-\ncompanied by $500 and a plaque) went to Abbas or to Woz-\nniak may have been important to Wozniak, but it is not a\nmader of public concern. Employers can insist that such\nmaders of personnel administration be handled confidential-\nly, using the employer’s preferred means. See, e.g., Bivens v.\nTrent, 591 F.3d 555, 560–62 (7th Cir. 2010). By humiliating\nstudents as a mader of self-gratification and persisting in\ndefiance of the Dean’s instructions, Wozniak left himself\nopen to discipline consistent with the Constitution.\n Wozniak’s second argument is that the Board violated\nthe Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Ten-\nured professors at public universities have property interests\nin their jobs and are entitled to notice and an opportunity for\na hearing before they may be deprived of that interest.\nCompare Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972), with\nPerry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 (1972). But the Dean gave\nWozniak formal notice, and he then had two hearings—one\nbefore the Commidee and one before the Board. At each he\nwas represented by counsel and allowed to call witnesses\nand present argument. He was entitled as well to an impar-\ntial decisionmaker, see Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556\nU.S. 868 (2009); Peters v. Kiff, 407 U.S. 493 (1972), and the\nUniversity honored that entitlement: Wozniak does not con-\ntend that any member of the Board was biased or otherwise\ndisqualified. He does complain about one member of the\nCommidee, but its recommendation was favorable to him,\nand it was also not the decisionmaker.\n We have said enough to show that the due-process claim\nmust be resolved in the University’s favor. Wozniak con-\ntends that the Commidee and Board did not follow all of the\n\f6 No. 18-3315\n\nUniversity’s rules and regulations for tenure-revocation pro-\nceedings, but this has nothing to do with the Constitution.\nThe meaning of the Due Process Clause is a mader of federal\nlaw, and a constitutional suit is not a way to enforce state\nlaw through the back door. See, e.g., Snowden v. Hughes, 321\nU.S. 1, 11 (1944); Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183, 192–96 (1984);\nArchie v. Racine, 847 F.2d 1211, 1215–18 (7th Cir. 1988) (en\nbanc); Tucker v. Chicago, 907 F.3d 487, 494–95 (7th Cir. 2018)\n(citing other decisions). (Wozniak could not use federal liti-\ngation to enforce state law directly against a part of the state,\nsee Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S.\n89, 103–23 (1984).) Wozniak complains that the Board did\nnot permit him to call every witness he wanted to present.\nBut the Due Process Clause does not regulate the hearing’s\nevery detail. Even in federal court—indeed, even in a crimi-\nnal prosecution, where procedural protections are at their\nmaximum—the judge may exclude proffered evidence as\nirrelevant or cumulative, see Fed. R. Evid. 402, 403, or for\nother reasons laid out in the Rules of Evidence.\n The Board received the Commidee’s report and its\nlengthy evidentiary record and heard enough additional tes-\ntimony to permit it to make an intelligent decision. The Con-\nstitution does not require the Board to take testimony from\nthe Commidee’s members. (Again this is not required, in-\ndeed usually is not allowed, in court, where judges make de-\ncisions based on administrative records without receiving\ndecisionmakers’ testimony. See, e.g., Citizens to Preserve\nOverton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 420 (1971).) Likewise\nit is irrelevant who prepared initial drafts of the opinions for\nthe Commidee or the Board. The members of the Federal\nCommunications Commission do not necessarily draft their\nown opinions (neither do all federal judges), but this does\n\fNo. 18-3315 7\n\nnot open them to constitutional adack. The University went\nwell beyond the constitutional minimum.\n Wozniak’s remaining arguments do not require discus-\nsion.\n AFFIRMED\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Louis WOZNIAK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ilesanmi ADESIDA, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-08-06\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\n\\nNo. 18-3315\\nLOUIS WOZNIAK,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n\\n v.\\n\\nILESANMI ADESIDA, et al.,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Central District of Illinois.\\n No. 15-cv-2275 — Colin S. Bruce, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED MAY 15, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 6, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and EASTERBROOK and\\nHAMILTON, Circuit Judges.\\n EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. The University of Illinois\\nfired Louis Wozniak in 2013. Until then he had tenure on the\\nfaculty of the College of Engineering. But after Wozniak\\nwaged an extended campaign against students who did not\\ngive him an award, the University’s Board of Trustees decid-\\ned that he had violated the institution’s norms and rules, in-\\ncluding the need to treat students with respect. As he had\\n\\f2 No. 18-3315\\n\\ndone before when the University insisted that he follow\\nschool policies, Wozniak responded with a federal lawsuit.\\nHe lost the last time, see Wozniak v. Conry, 236 F.3d 888 (7th\\nCir. 2001), and loses this time too.\\n The district court’s lengthy opinion granting summary\\njudgment to the defendants, 368 F. Supp. 3d 1217 (C.D. Ill.\\n2018), sets out all the pertinent facts, and then some, so we\\ncan be brief. Two student honor societies at the College of\\nEngineering jointly give an annual teaching award. In spring\\n2009 they presented the award to Professor Ali E. Abbas.\\nWozniak thought that he should have received the award\\nand set out to investigate. He called the head of one honor\\nsociety to his office, aggressively interrogated her, got her to\\ncry, and repeated the process with one of the University’s\\nemployees (who did not cry but was distressed). He then\\nposted on his website information criticizing the student\\nheads of the honor societies and enabling readers to deter-\\nmine their identities. That violated the University’s policies\\nas well as conditions adached to the University’s federal\\ngrants. 20 U.S.C. §1232g(b).\\n The College’s Dean started tenure-revocation proceed-\\nings. The University’s Commidee on Academic Freedom and\\nTenure investigated, held hearings, and received submis-\\nsions from the Interim Chancellor and Wozniak. The Com-\\nmidee concluded that Wozniak had engaged in several kinds\\nof misconduct but that loss of tenure would be an excessive\\nresponse. The University’s President presented the mader to\\nthe Board of Trustees, which held ultimate authority. It con-\\nducted its own hearing, including live testimony and cross-\\nexamination. Disagreeing with the Commidee, the Board\\nthought Wozniak’s conduct a firing offense.\\n\\fNo. 18-3315 3\\n\\n One reason for the difference in opinion is what Wozniak\\ndid after the Commidee issued its report: he posted the en-\\ntire document, and all evidence the Commidee received, on\\nhis website, revealing the identities of the students involved\\nand the distress they felt at Wozniak’s conduct. He included\\na link to this material in the signature block of every email\\nhe sent from his University account. Wozniak did this after\\nthe Commidee informed him that disseminating identifying\\ninformation about the students would be grounds for dis-\\nmissal. Told by the Dean to remove this material, Wozniak\\nrefused. Inconsiderate and insubordinate is the most chari-\\ntable description one can adach to this conduct.\\n Before the Commidee’s hearing, Wozniak had sought to\\ninterrogate the students further about the circumstances\\nleading to the award. After they refused to speak with him,\\nWozniak filed a civil suit in state court seeking damages\\nfrom them. He concedes that the sole reason for filing this\\nsuit was to get a judicial order requiring the students to sit\\nfor depositions, and that he planned to dismiss the suit as\\nsoon as that had been done. In other words, Wozniak con-\\ncedes commiding a tort against the students. (The tort is\\nabuse of process.) In the event, the state judge dismissed the\\nsuit as frivolous before depositions occurred.\\n The Board concluded that students should not be treated\\nas Wozniak had done and that students’ educational lives\\nwould be beder without him on the faculty. Wozniak does\\nnot contend that the Board’s decision violated his tenure\\ncontract; instead he accuses the University of violating the\\nConstitution of the United States.\\n His lead argument is that the First Amendment (applied\\nto the states through the Fourteenth) entitles faculty mem-\\n\\f4 No. 18-3315\\n\\nbers to make available to the public any information they\\nplease, no mader how embarrassing or distressful to stu-\\ndents. This argument, even if correct, would not carry the\\nday for him: he was fired for intentionally causing hurt to\\nstudents, and refusing to follow the Dean’s instructions, not\\nsimply for publicizing the effects of his actions. What’s more,\\nthe argument is not correct.\\n Wozniak acted in his capacity as a teacher. The subject of\\nthe award was teaching; he called students into his faculty\\noffice (a power he possessed by virtue of his job) and used\\nhis position to inflict the injuries that precipitated his dis-\\ncharge. Garce?i v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 421 (2006), holds that\\nthe First Amendment does not govern how employers re-\\nspond to speech that is part of a public employee’s job.\\nWozniak tells us that his conduct was not part of his duties,\\nand in a sense this is right: it did not concern how he ran his\\nclassroom, graded exams, assisted students in conducting\\nexperiments or writing papers, or conducted his own re-\\nsearch and scholarship. Those are core academic duties. Yet\\nhow faculty members relate to students is part of their jobs,\\nwhich makes Ceballos applicable. See Brown v. Chicago Board\\nof Education, 824 F.3d 713, 715 (7th Cir. 2016). Professors who\\nharass and humiliate students cannot successfully teach\\nthem, and a shell-shocked student may have difficulty learn-\\ning in other professors’ classes. A university that permits\\nprofessors to degrade students and commit torts against\\nthem cannot fulfill its educational functions.\\n There is another route to the same conclusion. Speech\\nthat concerns personal job-related maders is outside the\\nscope of the First Amendment, even if that speech is not\\namong the job’s duties. See, e.g., Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S.\\n\\fNo. 18-3315 5\\n\\n138 (1983). Whether an award by two student societies (ac-\\ncompanied by $500 and a plaque) went to Abbas or to Woz-\\nniak may have been important to Wozniak, but it is not a\\nmader of public concern. Employers can insist that such\\nmaders of personnel administration be handled confidential-\\nly, using the employer’s preferred means. See, e.g., Bivens v.\\nTrent, 591 F.3d 555, 560–62 (7th Cir. 2010). By humiliating\\nstudents as a mader of self-gratification and persisting in\\ndefiance of the Dean’s instructions, Wozniak left himself\\nopen to discipline consistent with the Constitution.\\n Wozniak’s second argument is that the Board violated\\nthe Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Ten-\\nured professors at public universities have property interests\\nin their jobs and are entitled to notice and an opportunity for\\na hearing before they may be deprived of that interest.\\nCompare Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972), with\\nPerry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 (1972). But the Dean gave\\nWozniak formal notice, and he then had two hearings—one\\nbefore the Commidee and one before the Board. At each he\\nwas represented by counsel and allowed to call witnesses\\nand present argument. He was entitled as well to an impar-\\ntial decisionmaker, see Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556\\nU.S. 868 (2009); Peters v. Kiff, 407 U.S. 493 (1972), and the\\nUniversity honored that entitlement: Wozniak does not con-\\ntend that any member of the Board was biased or otherwise\\ndisqualified. He does complain about one member of the\\nCommidee, but its recommendation was favorable to him,\\nand it was also not the decisionmaker.\\n We have said enough to show that the due-process claim\\nmust be resolved in the University’s favor. Wozniak con-\\ntends that the Commidee and Board did not follow all of the\\n\\f6 No. 18-3315\\n\\nUniversity’s rules and regulations for tenure-revocation pro-\\nceedings, but this has nothing to do with the Constitution.\\nThe meaning of the Due Process Clause is a mader of federal\\nlaw, and a constitutional suit is not a way to enforce state\\nlaw through the back door. See, e.g., Snowden v. Hughes, 321\\nU.S. 1, 11 (1944); Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183, 192–96 (1984);\\nArchie v. Racine, 847 F.2d 1211, 1215–18 (7th Cir. 1988) (en\\nbanc); Tucker v. Chicago, 907 F.3d 487, 494–95 (7th Cir. 2018)\\n(citing other decisions). (Wozniak could not use federal liti-\\ngation to enforce state law directly against a part of the state,\\nsee Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S.\\n89, 103–23 (1984).) Wozniak complains that the Board did\\nnot permit him to call every witness he wanted to present.\\nBut the Due Process Clause does not regulate the hearing’s\\nevery detail. Even in federal court—indeed, even in a crimi-\\nnal prosecution, where procedural protections are at their\\nmaximum—the judge may exclude proffered evidence as\\nirrelevant or cumulative, see Fed. R. Evid. 402, 403, or for\\nother reasons laid out in the Rules of Evidence.\\n The Board received the Commidee’s report and its\\nlengthy evidentiary record and heard enough additional tes-\\ntimony to permit it to make an intelligent decision. The Con-\\nstitution does not require the Board to take testimony from\\nthe Commidee’s members. (Again this is not required, in-\\ndeed usually is not allowed, in court, where judges make de-\\ncisions based on administrative records without receiving\\ndecisionmakers’ testimony. See, e.g., Citizens to Preserve\\nOverton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 420 (1971).) Likewise\\nit is irrelevant who prepared initial drafts of the opinions for\\nthe Commidee or the Board. The members of the Federal\\nCommunications Commission do not necessarily draft their\\nown opinions (neither do all federal judges), but this does\\n\\fNo. 18-3315 7\\n\\nnot open them to constitutional adack. The University went\\nwell beyond the constitutional minimum.\\n Wozniak’s remaining arguments do not require discus-\\nsion.\\n AFFIRMED\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}}],"truncated":false,"partial":false},"paginationData":{"pageIndex":37,"numItemsPerPage":100,"numTotalItems":31175,"offset":3700,"length":100}},"jwt":"eyJhbGciOiJFZERTQSIsImtpZCI6IjVHZDBvd0g5MTM2eDZjc1FvbE1zcktNWUZoRVFoUm5PVVVybEpjOUhaUEEifQ.eyJyZWFkIjp0cnVlLCJwZXJtaXNzaW9ucyI6eyJyZXBvLmNvbnRlbnQucmVhZCI6dHJ1ZX0sImlhdCI6MTc4NjUwNjcxMiwianRpIjoiYTZjODc3ZWItYTcxZi00YWQyLTg3NzYtMzMwMmIwNTNkMmRmIiwic3ViIjoiL2RhdGFzZXRzL2VpdGFucy1wdS9jbC1jb2RpbmctaW5wdXQiLCJleHAiOjE3ODY1MTAzMTIsImlzcyI6Imh0dHBzOi8vaHVnZ2luZ2ZhY2UuY28ifQ.hLRVIuRXOXEati3yXYk9fznK5OZdMSZPlgpBZ8vMTgCdfW_Ckouc2E_lHpxAsWckWU0jgrzUhVMe5x6sPdWWAQ","displayUrls":true,"splitSizeSummaries":[{"config":"default","split":"train","numRows":31175,"numBytesParquet":1629387251}]},"discussionsStats":{"closed":0,"open":1,"total":1},"fullWidth":true,"hasGatedAccess":true,"hasFullAccess":true,"isEmbedded":false,"savedQueries":{"community":[],"user":[]}}">
id int64 | name string | name_abbreviation string | decision_date string | docket_number string | court string | casebody string | judge1 string | judge2 string | judge3 string | exactly_three_caps int64 | extra_judges string | judge_designations string | opinions_count int64 | majority_count int64 | dissent_count int64 | concurrence_count int64 | other_count int64 | primary_citation string | reporter string | volume null | resource_url string | precedential_status string | 010combined_count int64 | 020lead_count int64 | 030concurrence_count int64 | 035concurrenceinpart_count int64 | 040dissent_count int64 | year int64 | month int64 | messages list |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
4,656,602 | Javier Flores v. Mike Pompeo | 2019-08-27 | 18-40699 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Before JOLLY, HO, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "JAMES C. HO, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 18-40699 Document: 00515093732 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/27/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR T... | JOLLY | HO | ENGELHARDT | 1 | {"JOLLY": ", Circuit", "HO": ", Circuit", "ENGELHARDT": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4656602/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,656,603 | Brock Services, L.L.C. v. Richard Rogillio | 2019-08-27 | 19-30363 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Before CLEMENT, HAYNES, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "EDITH BROWN CLEMENT, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 19-30363 Document: 00515093950 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/27/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n ... | CLEMENT | HAYNES | WILLETT | 1 | {"CLEMENT": ", Circuit", "HAYNES": ", Circuit", "WILLETT": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4656603/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,656,604 | Bay Point Properties, Inc. v. MS Transportation Co | 2019-08-27 | 18-60674 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Before DAVIS, HO, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "JAMES C. HO, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 18-60674 Document: 00515094043 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/27/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR T... | DAVIS | HO | ENGELHARDT | 1 | {"DAVIS": ", Circuit", "HO": ", Circuit", "ENGELHARDT": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4656604/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,656,797 | Wilfred Jones v. United States | 2019-08-28 | 18-30776 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Before KING, SMITH, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "DON R. WILLETT, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 18-30776 Document: 00515094961 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/28/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR ... | KING | SMITH | WILLETT | 1 | {"KING": ", Circuit", "SMITH": ", Circuit", "WILLETT": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4656797/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,656,803 | Roberto Sanchez v. Lorie Davis, Director | 2019-08-28 | 17-10652 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Before DAVIS, HIGGINSON, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "DON R. WILLETT, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 17-10652 Document: 00515094761 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/28/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n ... | DAVIS | HIGGINSON | WILLETT | 1 | {"DAVIS": ", Circuit", "HIGGINSON": ", Circuit", "WILLETT": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4656803/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,656,804 | League of Untd Latin American v. Edwards Aq | 2019-08-28 | 18-50655 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "JERRY E. SMITH, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 18-50655 Document: 00515095388 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/28/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n ... | HIGGINBOTHAM | SMITH | SOUTHWICK | 1 | {"HIGGINBOTHAM": ", Circuit", "SMITH": ", Circuit", "SOUTHWICK": ", Circuit"} | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4656804/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,656,805 | Clean Water Action v. EPA | 2019-08-28 | 18-60079 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "EDITH H. JONES, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 18-60079 Document: 00515094677 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/28/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n ... | HIGGINBOTHAM | JONES | COSTA | 1 | {"HIGGINBOTHAM": ", Circuit", "JONES": ", Circuit", "COSTA": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4656805/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,657,322 | Christina Romero v. Amanda Brown | 2019-08-29 | 18-20157 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Before KING, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "GREGG COSTA, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 18-20157 Document: 00515097312 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/29/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n F... | KING | HIGGINSON | COSTA | 1 | {"KING": ", Circuit", "HIGGINSON": ", Circuit", "COSTA": ", Circuit"} | 3 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4657322/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,657,519 | Wayne Klocke v. University of TX at Arlington | 2019-08-29 | 17-11320 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "EDITH H. JONES, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 17-11320 Document: 00515098175 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/29/2019\n\n\n\n\n REVISED August 29, 2019\n\... | JONES | BARKSDALE | WILLETT | 1 | {"JONES": ", Circuit", "BARKSDALE": ", Circuit", "WILLETT": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4657519/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,657,522 | United States v. Carlos Pedroza-Rocha | 2019-08-29 | 18-50828 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Before KING, ELROD, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "PER CURIAM", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 18-50828 Document: 00515098059 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/29/2019\n\n\n\n\n REVISED August 29, 2019\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT... | KING | ELROD | ENGELHARDT | 1 | {"KING": ", Circuit", "ELROD": ", Circuit", "ENGELHARDT": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4657522/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,657,523 | United States v. Bobbie London, Jr. | 2019-08-29 | 17-30675 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Before JOLLY, COSTA, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "E. GRADY JOLLY, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 17-30675 Document: 00515097453 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/29/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n ... | JOLLY | COSTA | ENGELHARDT | 1 | {"JOLLY": ", Circuit", "COSTA": ", Circuit", "ENGELHARDT": ", Circuit"} | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4657523/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,657,527 | Adrian Caliste v. Harry Cantrell | 2019-08-29 | 18-30954 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "GREGG COSTA, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 18-30954 Document: 00515098221 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/29/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n ... | HIGGINBOTHAM | JONES | COSTA | 1 | {"HIGGINBOTHAM": ", Circuit", "JONES": ", Circuit", "COSTA": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4657527/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,657,911 | United States v. Sonny Pervis | 2019-08-30 | 17-20689 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Before HIGGINSON and WILLETT, Circuit Judges, and BROWN, District Judge.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "STEPHEN A. HIGGINSON, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 17-20689 Document: 00515100039 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/30/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES ... | HIGGINSON | WILLETT | BROWN | 1 | {"HIGGINSON": ", Circuit", "WILLETT": ", Circuit", "BROWN": ", District"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4657911/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,657,913 | United States v. Elekwachi Kalu | 2019-08-30 | 18-20399 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Before KING, ELROD, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "KURT D. ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 18-20399 Document: 00515099879 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/30/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n ... | KING | ELROD | ENGELHARDT | 1 | {"KING": ", Circuit", "ELROD": ", Circuit", "ENGELHARDT": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4657913/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,657,917 | Center for Bio Diversity v. EPA | 2019-08-30 | 18-60102 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Before JONES, HO, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "ANDREW S. OLDHAM, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 18-60102 Document: 00515099339 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/30/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n F... | JONES | HO | OLDHAM | 1 | {"JONES": ", Circuit", "HO": ", Circuit", "OLDHAM": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4657917/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,645,020 | Vaughn MITCHELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Duncan MACLAREN, Warden, Respondent-Appellee. | Vaughn Mitchell v. Duncan MacLaren | 2019-08-01 | 17-2444 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Suhrheinrich, Bush, Readler", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0176p.06\n\n ... | SUHRHEINRICH | BUSH | READLER | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645020/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,645,026 | HENDRICKSON USA, LLC., Petitioner/Cross-Respondent, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent/Cross-Petitioner. | Hendrickson United States, LLC. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. | 2019-08-01 | 18-1144/1315 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Before: COOK, McKEAGUE, and WHITE, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "McKEAGUE", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0177p.06\n\n... | COOK | MCKEAGUE | WHITE | 1 | {"COOK": ", Circuit", "McKEAGUE": ", Circuit", "WHITE": ", Circuit"} | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645026/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,645,323 | GGNSC LOUISVILLE HILLCREEK, LLC; GGNSC Administrative Services, LLC; GGNSC Clinical Services, LLC, Petitioners-Appellants, v. ESTATE OF Robert C. BRAMER, BY AND THROUGH Margaret A. BRAMER, Administratrix; Margaret A. Bramer, Individually, Respondents-Appellees. | GGNSC Louisville Hillcreek v. Estate of Robert C. Bramer | 2019-08-02 | 18-6059 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Merritt, Moore, White", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "MERRITT, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0178p.06\n\n ... | MERRITT | MOORE | WHITE | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645323/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,645,604 | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lawrence J. JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant. | United States v. Lawrence Johnson | 2019-08-05 | 18-3002 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Donald, Larsen, Nalbandian", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "LARSEN, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0182p.06\n\n ... | DONALD | LARSEN | NALBANDIAN | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645604/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,645,606 | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Amir Babak BANYAN (17-6410); Bryan Puckett (17-6493), Defendants-Appellants. | United States v. Bryan Puckett | 2019-08-05 | 17-6410/6493 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Kethledge, Oliver, Siler", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/9889054/", "author_raw": ""}, {"author": "", "type": "030concurrence", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/... | KETHLEDGE | OLIVER | SILER | 1 | {} | 6 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645606/ | Published | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,645,607 | Sheryl HUBBELL, Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, v. FEDEX SMARTPOST, INC., Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee. | Sheryl Hubbell v. FedEx SmartPost | 2019-08-05 | 18-1373/1727 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Boggs, Kethledge, Stranch", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0180p.06\n\n... | BOGGS | KETHLEDGE | STRANCH | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645607/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,645,609 | Rene Antonio GONZALEZ-DE LEON, Petitioner, v. William P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. | Rene Gonzalez-De Leon v. William P. Barr | 2019-08-05 | 18-3583 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Gilman, Sutton, White", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0183p.06\n\n ... | GILMAN | SUTTON | WHITE | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645609/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,645,610 | Nicholas Samuel COFFEY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Adam CARROLL; Michael Pranger; James Pilchak, Defendants-Appellants. | Nicholas Coffey v. Adam Carroll | 2019-08-05 | 18-1314 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Merritt, Thapar, Readler", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "READLER, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0181p.06\n\n ... | MERRITT | THAPAR | READLER | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645610/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,645,611 | Jessica FRYE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC.; Consolidated Rail Corporation; Alan Gallacher, Defendants-Appellees. | Jessica Frye v. CSX Transp., Inc. | 2019-08-05 | 18-2056 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Cole, Stranch, Readler", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "CHAD A. READLER, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0184p.06\n\n ... | COLE | STRANCH | READLER | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645611/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,645,813 | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tirrell Perry THOMAS, Defendant-Appellant. | United States v. Tirrell Thomas | 2019-08-06 | 18-1592 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "McKeague, Kethledge, Murphy", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "MURPHY, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0186p.06\n\n ... | MCKEAGUE | KETHLEDGE | MURPHY | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645813/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,645,814 | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christina CARMAN, Defendant-Appellant. | United States v. Christina Carman | 2019-08-06 | 17-5074 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Suhrheinrich, Gibbons, Kethledge", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0185p.06\... | SUHRHEINRICH | GIBBONS | KETHLEDGE | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645814/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,646,164 | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tremaine Bernard JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant. | United States v. Tremaine Johnson | 2019-08-07 | 18-1675 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Moore, Cook, Readler", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "PER CURIAM", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0187p.06\n\n UNIT... | MOORE | COOK | READLER | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4646164/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,646,166 | Tyson O'NEAL, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Erick BALCARCEL, Warden, Respondent-Appellant. | Tyson O'Neal v. Erick Balcarcel | 2019-08-07 | 18-2201 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Boggs, Moore, Stranch", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0188p.06\n\n ... | BOGGS | MOORE | STRANCH | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4646166/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,646,349 | William T. SCHMITT ; Chad Thompson; Debbie Blewitt, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Frank LAROSE, Ohio Secretary of State, Defendant-Appellant. | William Schmitt v. Frank LaRose | 2019-08-07 | 19-3196 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Before: CLAY, WHITE, and BUSH, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "HELENE N. WHITE, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File N... | CLAY | WHITE | BUSH | 1 | {"CLAY": ", Circuit", "WHITE": ", Circuit", "BUSH": ", Circuit"} | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4646349/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,646,721 | Jerremy P. DYER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VENTRA SANDUSKY, LLC, Defendant-Appellee. | Jerremy Dyer v. Ventra Sandusky | 2019-08-08 | 18-3802 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Merritt, Clay, Rogers", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "MERRITT, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0190p.06\n\n ... | MERRITT | CLAY | ROGERS | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4646721/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,647,468 | George Edward CLARK, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Noah Nagy, WARDEN, Respondent-Appellant. | George Clark v. Noah Nagy | 2019-08-12 | 18-1885 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Boggs, Batchelder, Stranch", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0192p.06\n\n ... | BOGGS | BATCHELDER | STRANCH | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4647468/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,647,469 | Angela STUDDARD, Individually and as Lawful Wife, Next of Kin, Administrator Ad Litem, and Personal Representative for Edmond Studdard, Deceased, and Estate of Edmond Studdard, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE, Et Al., Defendants, Erin J. Shepherd and Terry I. Reed, Individually and as Employees or Agent... | Angela Studdard v. Shelby Cty., Tenn. | 2019-08-12 | 19-5084 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Sutton, Griffin, Readler", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "SUTTON, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0191p.06\n\n ... | SUTTON | GRIFFIN | READLER | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4647469/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,647,776 | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Philroy JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant. | United States v. Philroy Johnson | 2019-08-13 | 18-3720 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Sutton, Griffin, Readler", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "SUTTON, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0193p.06\n\n ... | SUTTON | GRIFFIN | READLER | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4647776/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,647,779 | John Brindley v. City of Memphis, Tenn. | 2019-08-13 | 18-5753 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Before: STRANCH and DONALD, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "No. 2:17-cv-02849-Samuel H. Mays, Jr., District Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n ... | STRANCH | DONALD | STRANCH | 1 | {"STRANCH": ", Circuit", "DONALD": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4647779/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,648,235 | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeffrey W. HARNEY, Defendant-Appellant. | United States v. Jeffrey Harney | 2019-08-14 | 18-6010 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Sutton, Griffin, Readler", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "SUTTON, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0195p.06\n\n ... | SUTTON | GRIFFIN | READLER | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4648235/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,648,236 | Kamal Anwiya YOUKHANNA; Wafa Catcho; Marey Jabbo; Debi Rrasi; Jeffrey Norgrove; Megan McHugh, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF STERLING HEIGHTS; Michael C. Taylor, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Mayor, City of Sterling Heights, Michigan, Defendants-Appellees. | Kamal Youkhanna v. City of Sterling Heights | 2019-08-14 | 18-1874 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Merritt, Moore, White", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0196p.06\... | MERRITT | MOORE | WHITE | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4648236/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,648,239 | The ESTATE OF Joann Matouk ROMAIN, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF GROSSE POINTE FARMS; Daniel Jensen; Jack Patterson; Andrew Rogers; Antonio Trupiano ; Keith Colombo; Michael McCarthy; Richard A. Rosati; John Walko; Frank Zielinski; Ricky Good ; City of Grosse Pointe Woods ; Andrew Pazuchowski; Keith Waszak;... | Estate of Joann Matouk Romain v. City of Grosse Pointe Farms | 2019-08-14 | 18-1316 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "McKeague, Murphy", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "McKEAGUE", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/9889078/", "author_raw": "McKEAGUE"}, {"author": "", "type": "030concurrence", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/a... | MCKEAGUE | MURPHY | MCKEAGUE | 1 | {} | 4 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4648239/ | Published | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,648,685 | ZEHENTBAUER FAMILY LAND, LP; Hanover Farms, LP ; Evelyn Frances Young, Successor Trustee of Robert Milton Young Trust, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CHESAPEAKE EXPLORATION, L.L.C.; Chesapeake Operating, Inc.; Chk Utica, L.L.C.; Total E&P USA, Inc., Defendants-Appellants. | Zehentbauer Family Land, LP v. Chesapeake Exploration, L. L.C. | 2019-08-15 | 18-4139 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Gilman, Stranch, Nalbandian", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0198p.06\n\n ... | GILMAN | STRANCH | NALBANDIAN | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4648685/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,648,993 | Richard Vowell v. United States | 2019-08-16 | 17-5405 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Before: CLAY, MOORE, and DONALD, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n ... | CLAY | MOORE | DONALD | 1 | {"CLAY": ", Circuit", "MOORE": ", Circuit", "DONALD": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4648993/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,648,995 | Andrea BOXILL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James P. O'GRADY; Carrie E. Glaeden; James E. Green; Emily Shaw ; Michael T. Brandt, Defendants-Appellees. | Andrea Boxill v. James O'Grady | 2019-08-16 | 18-3385 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Boggs, Kethledge, Stranch", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0200p.06\n\n ... | BOGGS | KETHLEDGE | STRANCH | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4648995/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,649,758 | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony Dwayne MCCLOUD, II, Defendant-Appellant. | United States v. Anthony McCloud | 2019-08-20 | 18-2428 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Before: GILMAN, SUTTON, and WHITE, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n ... | GILMAN | SUTTON | WHITE | 1 | {"GILMAN": ", Circuit", "SUTTON": ", Circuit", "WHITE": ", Circuit"} | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4649758/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,649,759 | Ronald OSBORNE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY, Defendant-Appellee. | Osborne v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson Cnty. | 2019-08-20 | 18-6062 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Siler, Donald", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "No. 3:18-cv-00390-Aleta Arthur Trauger, District Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n Fi... | SILER | DONALD | SILER | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4649759/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,654,472 | Logan Vanderhoef v. Maurice Dixon | 2019-08-21 | 18-5993 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Before: GUY, CLAY, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge.", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 1... | GUY | CLAY | GRIFFIN | 1 | {"GUY": ", Circuit", "CLAY": ", Circuit", "GRIFFIN": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4654472/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,654,475 | Ammex, Inc. v. Gordon Wenk | 2019-08-21 | 18-1677 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Before: GRIFFIN, WHITE, and BUSH, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "HELENE N. WHITE, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File ... | GRIFFIN | WHITE | BUSH | 1 | {"GRIFFIN": ", Circuit", "WHITE": ", Circuit", "BUSH": ", Circuit"} | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4654475/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,655,007 | United Specialty Ins. Co. v. Cole's Place, Inc. | 2019-08-22 | 18-5545 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Before: GRIFFIN, WHITE, and BUSH, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Nam... | GRIFFIN | WHITE | BUSH | 1 | {"GRIFFIN": ", Circuit", "WHITE": ", Circuit", "BUSH": ", Circuit"} | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4655007/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,655,009 | LeRod Butler v. City of Detroit, Mich. | 2019-08-22 | 18-1605 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Before: MERRITT, LARSEN, and READLER, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "No. 2:16-cv-14272-Stephen J. Murphy, III, District Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n ... | MERRITT | LARSEN | READLER | 1 | {"MERRITT": ", Circuit", "LARSEN": ", Circuit", "READLER": ", Circuit"} | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4655009/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,655,013 | Christa Pike v. Gloria Gross | 2019-08-22 | 16-5854 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Before: COOK, GRIFFIN, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge.", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name:... | COOK | GRIFFIN | STRANCH | 1 | {"COOK": ", Circuit", "GRIFFIN": ", Circuit", "STRANCH": ", Circuit"} | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4655013/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,655,014 | A1 Diabetes & Med. Supply v. Alex Azar II | 2019-08-22 | 18-6303 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Before: GILMAN, SUTTON, and WHITE, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "SUTTON, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19... | GILMAN | SUTTON | WHITE | 1 | {"GILMAN": ", Circuit", "SUTTON": ", Circuit", "WHITE": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4655014/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,655,509 | Ty Shanaberg v. Licking Cty., Ohio | 2019-08-23 | 18-3916 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Before: ROGERS, GRIFFIN, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge.", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n Fi... | ROGERS | GRIFFIN | NALBANDIAN | 1 | {"ROGERS": ", Circuit", "GRIFFIN": ", Circuit", "NALBANDIAN": ", Circuit"} | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4655509/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,655,511 | Kyle Clark v. Kevin Lindsey | 2019-08-23 | 18-1640 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Before: NORRIS, CLAY, and SUTTON, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "SUTTON, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 1... | NORRIS | CLAY | SUTTON | 1 | {"NORRIS": ", Circuit", "CLAY": ", Circuit", "SUTTON": ", Circuit"} | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4655511/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,655,512 | James Yates v. Kim Davis | 2019-08-23 | 17-6120 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Before: GRIFFIN, WHITE, and BUSH, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge.", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Nam... | GRIFFIN | WHITE | BUSH | 1 | {"GRIFFIN": ", Circuit", "WHITE": ", Circuit", "BUSH": ", Circuit"} | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4655512/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,655,513 | In re Univ. of Mich. | 2019-08-23 | 19-1636 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Before: ROGERS, KETHLEDGE, and THAPAR, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "THAPAR, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n ... | ROGERS | KETHLEDGE | THAPAR | 1 | {"ROGERS": ", Circuit", "KETHLEDGE": ", Circuit", "THAPAR": ", Circuit"} | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4655513/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,655,514 | April Miller v. Kim Davis | 2019-08-23 | 17-6404 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Before: GRIFFIN, WHITE, and BUSH, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge.", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name:... | GRIFFIN | WHITE | BUSH | 1 | {"GRIFFIN": ", Circuit", "WHITE": ", Circuit", "BUSH": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4655514/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,656,013 | Joy Spurr v. Melissa Lopez Pope | 2019-08-26 | 18-2174 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Before: DAUGHTREY, COOK, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "COOK, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Na... | DAUGHTREY | COOK | GRIFFIN | 1 | {"DAUGHTREY": ", Circuit", "COOK": ", Circuit", "GRIFFIN": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4656013/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,656,294 | Michael Knight v. United States | 2019-08-27 | 17-6370 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Before: COOK, McKEAGUE, and WHITE, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "HELENE N. WHITE, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n ... | COOK | MCKEAGUE | WHITE | 1 | {"COOK": ", Circuit", "McKEAGUE": ", Circuit", "WHITE": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4656294/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,656,295 | Melvin Sparks v. EquityExperts.org, LLC | 2019-08-27 | 18-2378 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Before: ROGERS, BUSH, and LARSEN, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "ROGERS, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n Fil... | ROGERS | BUSH | LARSEN | 1 | {"ROGERS": ", Circuit", "BUSH": ", Circuit", "LARSEN": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4656295/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,656,296 | Karla Brintley v. Belle River Community Credit Union | 2019-08-27 | 18-2328 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Before: GILMAN, SUTTON, and WHITE, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "SUTTON, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0... | GILMAN | SUTTON | WHITE | 1 | {"GILMAN": ", Circuit", "SUTTON": ", Circuit", "WHITE": ", Circuit"} | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4656296/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,656,298 | Gerald Sensabaugh v. Kimber Halliburton | 2019-08-27 | 18-6329 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Before: ROGERS, BUSH, and LARSEN, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "LARSEN, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 1... | ROGERS | BUSH | LARSEN | 1 | {"ROGERS": ", Circuit", "BUSH": ", Circuit", "LARSEN": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4656298/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,656,893 | Karla Brintley v. Belle River Community Credit Union | 2019-08-27 | 18-2328 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Before: GILMAN, SUTTON, and WHITE, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "SUTTON, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0... | GILMAN | SUTTON | WHITE | 1 | {"GILMAN": ", Circuit", "SUTTON": ", Circuit", "WHITE": ", Circuit"} | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4656893/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,656,894 | Gerald Sensabaugh v. Kimber Halliburton | 2019-08-27 | 18-6329 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Before: ROGERS, BUSH, and LARSEN, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "LARSEN, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 1... | ROGERS | BUSH | LARSEN | 1 | {"ROGERS": ", Circuit", "BUSH": ", Circuit", "LARSEN": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4656894/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,656,892 | CIC Services, LLC v. IRS | 2019-08-28 | 18-5019 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Before: SUHRHEINRICH, CLAY, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Clay's opinion for the court on the other. These three opinions together with then-Judge Kavanaugh’s opinion say all there is to say about the issue from a lower court judge’s perspective.", "type": ... | SUHRHEINRICH | CLAY | NALBANDIAN | 1 | {"SUHRHEINRICH": ", Circuit", "CLAY": ", Circuit", "NALBANDIAN": ", Circuit"} | 4 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4656892/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,657,307 | Michael Scott v. First S. Nat'l Bank | 2019-08-29 | 18-6130 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Before: CLAY, LARSEN, and READLER, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "CLAY, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19... | CLAY | LARSEN | READLER | 1 | {"CLAY": ", Circuit", "LARSEN": ", Circuit", "READLER": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4657307/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,657,308 | Heather Baker v. City of Trenton | 2019-08-29 | 18-2181 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Before: SUTTON, BUSH, and LARSEN, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File N... | SUTTON | BUSH | LARSEN | 1 | {"SUTTON": ", Circuit", "BUSH": ", Circuit", "LARSEN": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4657308/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,657,797 | United States v. Michael Clayton | 2019-08-30 | 18-2237 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Before: SUTTON, GRIFFIN, and READLER, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "CHAD A. READLER, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n ... | SUTTON | GRIFFIN | READLER | 1 | {"SUTTON": ", Circuit", "GRIFFIN": ", Circuit", "READLER": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4657797/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,657,800 | J. Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ. | 2019-08-30 | 18-3825 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Before: MERRITT, KETHLEDGE, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n ... | MERRITT | KETHLEDGE | NALBANDIAN | 1 | {"MERRITT": ", Circuit", "KETHLEDGE": ", Circuit", "NALBANDIAN": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4657800/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,644,969 | Brian KNUTSON, Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. VILLAGE OF LAKEMOOR, Defendant-Appellee. | Brian Knutson v. Village of Lakemoor | 2019-08-01 | 18-3729 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Manion, Sykes, Brennan", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Daniel Anthony Manion", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-3729\nBRIAN KNUTSON, et al.,\n ... | MANION | SYKES | BRENNAN | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4644969/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,645,027 | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Julian THOMAS, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Thompson, Defendant-Appellant. | United States v. Julian Thomas | 2019-08-01 | 18-1356; 18-1519 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Easterbrook, Kanne, Hamilton", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "David Frank Hamilton", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-1356\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n ... | EASTERBROOK | KANNE | HAMILTON | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645027/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,645,028 | Brian Knutson v. Village of Lakemoor | 2019-08-01 | 18-3729 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before MANION, SYKES, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Daniel Anthony Manion", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-3729\nBRIAN KNUTSON, ... | MANION | SYKES | BRENNAN | 1 | {"MANION": ", Circuit", "SYKES": ", Circuit", "BRENNAN": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645028/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,645,046 | United States v. Julian Thomas | 2019-08-01 | 18-1356 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before EASTERBROOK, KANNE, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "David Frank Hamilton", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-1356\nUNITED STATE... | EASTERBROOK | KANNE | HAMILTON | 1 | {"EASTERBROOK": ", Circuit", "KANNE": ", Circuit", "HAMILTON": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645046/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,645,047 | Steven D. LISLE, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William WELBORN, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees. | Steven Lisle, Jr. v. William Welborn | 2019-08-01 | 18-1595 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Hamilton, Barrett, Eve", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "David Frank Hamilton", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-1595\nSTEVEN D. LISLE, JR.,\n ... | HAMILTON | BARRETT | 0 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645047/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,645,048 | Jeffrey D. LEISER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Karen KLOTH, Correctional Sergeant, Et Al., Defendants-Appellants. | Jeffrey Leiser v. Karen Kloth | 2019-08-01 | 17-3378 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Easterbrook, Hamilton, Scudder", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "David Frank Hamilton", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 17-3378\nJEFFREY D. LEISER,\n ... | EASTERBROOK | HAMILTON | SCUDDER | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645048/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,645,049 | Brian Knutson v. Village of Lakemoor | 2019-08-01 | 18-3729 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before MANION, SYKES, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Daniel Anthony Manion", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-3729\nBRIAN KNUTSON, ... | MANION | SYKES | BRENNAN | 1 | {"MANION": ", Circuit", "SYKES": ", Circuit", "BRENNAN": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645049/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,645,118 | Steven Lisle, Jr. v. William Welborn | 2019-08-01 | 18-1595 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before HAMILTON, BARRETT, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "David Frank Hamilton", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-1595\nSTEVEN D. LI... | HAMILTON | BARRETT | ST EVE | 1 | {"HAMILTON": ", Circuit", "BARRETT": ", Circuit", "ST EVE": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645118/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,645,119 | Jeffrey Leiser v. Karen Kloth | 2019-08-01 | 17-3378 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before EASTERBROOK, HAMILTON, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "David Frank Hamilton", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 17-3378\nJEFFRE... | EASTERBROOK | HAMILTON | SCUDDER | 1 | {"EASTERBROOK": ", Circuit", "HAMILTON": ", Circuit", "SCUDDER": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645119/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,645,284 | Mark Richardson v. CTA | 2019-08-02 | 18-2199 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before: JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge Nos.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Defendant-Appellee. Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "United States Court of Appeals\n For the... | JOEL M FLAUM | MICHAEL S KANNE | MICHAEL Y SCUDDER | 1 | {"JOEL M FLAUM": ", Circuit", "MICHAEL S KANNE": ", Circuit", "MICHAEL Y SCUDDER": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645284/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,645,285 | Mark Richardson v. CTA | 2019-08-02 | 17-3508 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Per Curiam", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "010combined", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4422538/", "author_raw": ""}]} | 0 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645285/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||||||
4,645,327 | Mark Richardson v. CTA | 2019-08-02 | 18-2199 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before: JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge Nos.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Defendant-Appellee. Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "United States Court of Appeals\n For the... | JOEL M FLAUM | MICHAEL S KANNE | MICHAEL Y SCUDDER | 1 | {"JOEL M FLAUM": ", Circuit", "MICHAEL S KANNE": ", Circuit", "MICHAEL Y SCUDDER": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645327/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,645,377 | SPORTFUEL, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PEPSICO, INC. and the Gatorade Company, Defendants-Appellees. | SportFuel, Inc. v. PepsiCo, Inc. | 2019-08-02 | 18-3010 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Kanne, Barrett, Brennan", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Michael Stephen Kanne", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18‐3010\nSPORTFUEL, INC.,\n ... | KANNE | BARRETT | BRENNAN | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645377/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,645,379 | Mark Richardson v. CTA | 2019-08-02 | 18-2199 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before: JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge Nos.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Defendant-Appellee. Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "United States Court of Appeals\n For the... | JOEL M FLAUM | MICHAEL S KANNE | MICHAEL Y SCUDDER | 1 | {"JOEL M FLAUM": ", Circuit", "MICHAEL S KANNE": ", Circuit", "MICHAEL Y SCUDDER": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645379/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,645,380 | Marcus D. TORRY, Latrell Q. Goss, and William I. Roberts, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees. | Marcus Torry v. City of Chicago | 2019-08-02 | 18-1935 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Kanne, Barrett, Brennan", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "BARRETT, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-1935\nMARCUS D. TORRY, LATRELL Q. GOSS,\nand WI... | KANNE | BARRETT | BRENNAN | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645380/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,645,465 | SportFuel, Inc. v. PepsiCo, Inc. | 2019-08-02 | 18-3010 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before KANNE, BARRETT, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Michael Stephen Kanne", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18‐3010\nSPORTFUEL, INC... | KANNE | BARRETT | BRENNAN | 1 | {"KANNE": ", Circuit", "BARRETT": ", Circuit", "BRENNAN": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645465/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,645,466 | Marcus Torry v. City of Chicago | 2019-08-02 | 18-1935 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before KANNE, BARRETT, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "BARRETT, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-1935\nMARCUS D. TOR... | KANNE | BARRETT | BRENNAN | 1 | {"KANNE": ", Circuit", "BARRETT": ", Circuit", "BRENNAN": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645466/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,645,572 | In RE: Scott N. JAFFE, Debtor-Appellee, Appeal Of: Laverne Williams. | Laverne Williams v. Scott Jaffe | 2019-08-05 | 18-2726 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Bauer, Hamilton, Brennan", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "William Joseph Bauer", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\nNo. 18-2726\n\nIN RE: SCOTT N. JAFFE,\n Debtor... | BAUER | HAMILTON | BRENNAN | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645572/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,645,586 | Michael O. CAMPOS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COOK COUNTY, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees. | Michael Campos v. Cook County | 2019-08-05 | 18-3472 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Kanne, Sykes, Brennan", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Michael Stephen Kanne", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-3472\nMICHAEL O. CAMPOS,\n ... | KANNE | SYKES | BRENNAN | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645586/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,645,587 | Laverne Williams v. Scott Jaffe | 2019-08-05 | 18-2726 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before BAUER, HAMILTON, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "William Joseph Bauer", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\nNo. 18-2726\n\nIN RE: SCOTT N. JAFFE,\n ... | BAUER | HAMILTON | BRENNAN | 1 | {"BAUER": ", Circuit", "HAMILTON": ", Circuit", "BRENNAN": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645587/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,645,613 | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Otis HUNTER and Deshawn Evans, Defendants-Appellants. | United States v. Otis Hunter | 2019-08-05 | 18-2013 & 18-2044 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Flaum, Kanne, Scudder", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Michael Stephen Kanne", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n ... | FLAUM | KANNE | SCUDDER | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645613/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,645,615 | Michael Campos v. Cook County | 2019-08-05 | 18-3472 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before KANNE, SYKES, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Michael Stephen Kanne", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-3472\nMICHAEL O. CAMPO... | KANNE | SYKES | BRENNAN | 1 | {"KANNE": ", Circuit", "SYKES": ", Circuit", "BRENNAN": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645615/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,645,616 | Laverne Williams v. Scott Jaffe | 2019-08-05 | 18-2726 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before BAUER, HAMILTON, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "William Joseph Bauer", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\nNo. 18-2726\n\nIN RE: SCOTT N. JAFFE,\n ... | BAUER | HAMILTON | BRENNAN | 1 | {"BAUER": ", Circuit", "HAMILTON": ", Circuit", "BRENNAN": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645616/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,645,741 | United States v. Otis Hunter | 2019-08-05 | 18-2013 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before FLAUM, KANNE, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Michael Stephen Kanne", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNos. 18‐2013 & 18‐2044\nUNITED... | FLAUM | KANNE | SCUDDER | 1 | {"FLAUM": ", Circuit", "KANNE": ", Circuit", "SCUDDER": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645741/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,645,743 | Michael Campos v. Cook County | 2019-08-05 | 18-3472 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before KANNE, SYKES, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Michael Stephen Kanne", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-3472\nMICHAEL O. CAMPO... | KANNE | SYKES | BRENNAN | 1 | {"KANNE": ", Circuit", "SYKES": ", Circuit", "BRENNAN": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645743/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,645,744 | Laverne Williams v. Scott Jaffe | 2019-08-05 | 18-2726 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before BAUER, HAMILTON, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "William Joseph Bauer", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\nNo. 18-2726\n\nIN RE: SCOTT N. JAFFE,\n ... | BAUER | HAMILTON | BRENNAN | 1 | {"BAUER": ", Circuit", "HAMILTON": ", Circuit", "BRENNAN": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645744/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,645,818 | Patrick J. DOHERTY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, as Receiver for Washington Federal Bank for Savings, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees. | Doherty v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. | 2019-08-06 | 18-3133 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Flaum, Kanne, Scudder", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Michael Stephen Kanne", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-3133\nPATRICK J. DOHERTY,\n ... | FLAUM | KANNE | SCUDDER | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645818/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,645,876 | Patrick Doherty v. FDIC | 2019-08-06 | 18-3133 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before FLAUM, KANNE, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Michael Stephen Kanne", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-3133\nPATRICK J. DOHERTY... | FLAUM | KANNE | SCUDDER | 1 | {"FLAUM": ", Circuit", "KANNE": ", Circuit", "SCUDDER": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645876/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,645,877 | Donald N. TIMM and Mary K. Timm, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GOODYEAR DUNLOP TIRES NORTH AMERICA, LTD., an Ohio-Based Corporation, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees. | Donald Timm v. Goodyear Dunlop Tires North Am | 2019-08-06 | 18-2641 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Flaum, Kanne, Scudder", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "SCUDDER, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-2641\nDONALD N. TIMM and MARY K. TIMM,\n ... | FLAUM | KANNE | SCUDDER | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645877/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,645,917 | Michael ALONSO, Individually and Derivatively on Behalf of Nutmeg/Mercury Fund, LLP (Hereinafter Within This Caption Mercury Fund, LLP), Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, and Randall S. Goulding, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Leslie J. WEISS and Barnes & Thornburg, Defendants-Appellees. | Randall Goulding v. Leslie Weiss | 2019-08-06 | 18-1740; 18-1791 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Sykes, Scudder, Eve", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "No. 1:12-cv-7373 - Joan Humphrey Lefkow, Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\n\n\nNos. 18-1740 & 18-1791\nMICHAEL ... | SYKES | SCUDDER | 0 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645917/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,645,918 | Patrick Doherty v. FDIC | 2019-08-06 | 18-3133 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before FLAUM, KANNE, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Michael Stephen Kanne", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-3133\nPATRICK J. DOHERTY... | FLAUM | KANNE | SCUDDER | 1 | {"FLAUM": ", Circuit", "KANNE": ", Circuit", "SCUDDER": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645918/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,645,919 | Donald Timm v. Goodyear Dunlop Tires North Am | 2019-08-06 | 18-2641 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before FLAUM, KANNE, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "SCUDDER, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-2641\nDONALD N. TIMM ... | FLAUM | KANNE | SCUDDER | 1 | {"FLAUM": ", Circuit", "KANNE": ", Circuit", "SCUDDER": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645919/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,645,957 | Randall Goulding v. Leslie Weiss | 2019-08-06 | 18-1791 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before SYKES, SCUDDER, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "No. 1:12-cv-7373 - Joan Humphrey Lefkow, Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\n\n\n... | SYKES | SCUDDER | ST EVE | 1 | {"SYKES": ", Circuit", "SCUDDER": ", Circuit", "ST EVE": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645957/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,645,958 | Eric J. MAPES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of INDIANA, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees. | Eric Mapes v. State of Indiana | 2019-08-06 | 19-1384 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before FLAUM, SYKES, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "PER CURIAM", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\n\n\nNo. 19-1384\nERIC J. MAPES,\n ... | FLAUM | SYKES | HAMILTON | 1 | {"FLAUM": ", Circuit", "SYKES": ", Circuit", "HAMILTON": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645958/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,645,976 | Louis WOZNIAK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ilesanmi ADESIDA, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees. | Louis Wozniak v. Ilesanmi Adesida | 2019-08-06 | 18-3315 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Wood, Easterbrook, Hamilton", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Frank Hoover Easterbrook", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\n\nNo. 18-3315\nLOUIS WOZNIAK,\n ... | WOOD | EASTERBROOK | HAMILTON | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4645976/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 8 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.